QUESTION: Ula in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that Kodshim she'Mesu (sanctified animals that died) no longer are subject to the Isur of Me'ilah. Rav Chisda questions this ruling and asks, "Where did their Kedushah go?" Ula responds that the Mishnah teaches that the Isur of Me'ilah can be removed from an object of Kedushah even though nothing was done to remove that object's Kedushah. The Mishnah says that Me'ilah no longer applies to Bnei Yonah (young common doves) that have become too old to be offered as bird-offerings ("she'Avar Zemanan"). The Gemara then quotes the words, "And my difficulty is: is there such a thing that first has no Me'ilah and then at the end has Me'ilah (without any new act of Hekdesh or addition of Kedushah)?"

What is the Gemara now asking? Kodshim she'Mesu have Me'ilah originally, and when they die they no longer have Me'ilah. Why does the Gemara mention something that does not have Me'ilah at first, and then it has Me'ilah? What is the relevance of such a case to Kodshim she'Mesu?

(a) The PERUSH KADMON explains that Rav Chisda is asking how Torin (turtledoves) that are still too young to be offered ("she'Lo Higi'a Zemanan"), mentioned in Ula's response to Rav Chisda, can have Me'ilah mid'Oraisa when they reach the age at which they may be offered, even though their owner did not re-sanctify them or give them any additional Kedushah. When he sanctified them initially, there was only an Isur d'Rabanan against deriving benefit from them ("Lo Nehenin"), but no Isur of Me'ilah. Why should the Isur of Me'ilah suddenly take effect mid'Oraisa when they become of age?

(b) RASHI explains that Rav Chisda is asking how Torin she'Lo Higi'a Zemanan can have Me'ilah mid'Rabanan when they reach their appropriate time, if -- before their time -- they had no Isur of Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan (rather, they were prohibited only from deriving benefit from them ("Lo Nehenin"; see Rashi to 3a, DH v'Lo; Tosfos 12b, DH v'Damav).

(c) TOSFOS (DH v'Chi) explains that the Gemara understands that Kodshim she'Mesu have Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, even if they were Kodshim Kalim. Rav Chisda is asking how could Kodshim Kalim have Me'ilah mid'Rabanan after they die if, when they were alive, they had no Isur of Me'ilah?

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes Rav (or Rav Huna in the name of Ze'ira) who says that one is forbidden to derive benefit from the blood that comes out of an animal of Kodshim during bloodletting. Moreover, one who derives benefit from such blood transgresses the Isur of Me'ilah.

What is the difference between this case and the case discussed earlier (12a) of Kodshim she'Mesu (sanctified animals that died), which no longer are subject to the Isur of Me'ilah? In that case, the animal no longer can be brought as a Korban, and thus it is logical that Me'ilah does not apply. Similarly, blood that exits an animal during bloodletting cannot be used for Zerikas ha'Dam, and thus the Isur of Me'ilah should not apply. (See YAD BINYAMIN in the name of RAV ELYASHIV shlit'a.)

(a) RAV ISUR ZALMAN MELTZER zt'l in EVEN HA'AZEL (Hilchos Me'ilah 2:11, DH v'Hineh) suggests the following answer. Just as blood can be drawn out of the body, it also can be infused back into the body. Since the blood can be returned into the body, as long as the animal is alive the blood that was removed does not have the status of being "dead." Therefore, it is not comparable to a dead animal of Kodshim, to which Me'ilah does not apply mid'Oraisa. The blood removed from a live animal is considered to be "alive," and Me'ilah applies to it mid'Oraisa.

(This novel proposal of the Even ha'Azel may have practical Halachic ramifications. The contemporary authorities discuss a case of a Kohen who loses a limb, such as a finger, in an accident. Is the Kohen permitted to ride in the ambulance together with his finger, to a hospital where it might be possible to reattach the finger to his hand? A Kohen is not permitted to come into contact with, or be under the same roof as, a corpse or a "dead" limb (Ohalos 1:1), and thus perhaps he is not permitted to travel in the ambulance together with his own severed finger. However, according to the proposal of the Even ha'Azel, perhaps the finger is not considered "dead" since it can be reattached to the body. (See TZITZ ELIEZER 14:78; see also DERECH SICHAH, p. 377, in the name of RAV CHAIM KANIEVKY shlit'a, who suggests that the Even ha'Azel's proposal may answer the question of TOSFOS in Bava Metzia (114b, DH Amar), who asks how Eliyahu, who was a Kohen, could have been Metamei himself and revive (through a Nes) the son of the widow. Since it was possible to resuscitate him, he did not have the status of a Mes.)

(b) The Even ha'Azel suggests a second answer based on the Gemara earlier (11a). According to one opinion cited there, the source that Me'ilah does not apply to the blood of a Korban after Shechitah is the verse, "And I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls" (Vayikra 17:11), which implies that the blood is given for atonement but not for Me'ilah. The Even ha'Azel asserts that we cannot learn from here that Me'ilah does not apply to the blood drawn from a live animal, because the animal is not fit to provide atonement before it is slaughtered. Consequently, the Isur of Me'ilah applies to the "live" blood, because it is considered part of the live animal. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Me'ilah 2:11) writes that the reason why Me'ilah applies to the blood drawn from the animal is that the animal cannot live without the blood (as the Gemara here says), and thus the blood is considered part of the body of the animal, which still can be offered as a Korban.

In contrast, Me'ilah does not apply to a dead animal of Kodshim that no longer can be offered as a Korban. (See also Insights to Chulin 125:2.) (D. BLOOM)