ME'ILAH 7 - Dedicated l'Zechut Refu'ah Shleimah for Elisheva Chaya bat Leah. Dedicated by Michael Steinberg, David Steinberg, and Ethan Steinberg.
1)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Akiva's ruling ('Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'), by confining it to where only some of the Basar left the Azarah. Why is that?
(b)Rav Asi cited his Babylonian colleagues however, who said 'Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf'. What did they mean by that?
(c)How does this clash with Rebbi Yochanan?
(d)What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?
1)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan qualifies Rebbi Akiva's ruling ('Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'), by confining it to where only some of the Basar left the Azarah - because then it is possible to apply the principle of Migu (since Zerikah takes effect on the Basar that did not leave the Azarah, it also takes effect on the Basar that did).
(b)Rav Asi cited his Babylonian colleagues however, who said 'Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf' - if the Kohen performed the Zerikah with the intention of burning the Emurin that had already been burned or lost, Chutz li'Zemanan or li'Mekoman, whoever subsequently eats the Basar (or the lost Emurin after they have been found) is Chayav Kareis for eating Pigul ...
(c)... even though there is no Migu (in which case it clashes with Rebbi Yochanan, because if the Zerikah on burned Emurin can create Pigul on them, it can also remove the Din Me'ilah on all of the Basar that was Yotzei.
(d)Rebbi Yochanan - did not reply.
2)
(a)On a previous occasion Rav Asi had asked Rebbi Yochanan about a case where the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul on spilt blood. What might the case be, besides where the Kohen thought whilst pouring the Shirayim on to the Y'sod that he would drink a k'Zayis of that Shirayim the next day?
(b)Rebbi Zeira resolved the She'eilah by citing Elel (the cervical ligament) that Rebbi Yochanan had taught them, based on the Mishnah in Chulin. The Tana there says that Elel is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin but not Tum'as Neveilos. Why is it not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos?
(c)What problem does this create for Rav Asi?
(d)How do we initially reconcile the Mishnah in Chulin with the Beraisa (cited by Rav Asi's colleagues) 'Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf'?
2)
(a)On a previous occasion, Rav Asi had asked Rebbi Yochanan about a case where the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul on the spilt blood. Besides where the Kohen thought whilst pouring the Shirayim on to the Yesod that he would drink a k'Zayis of that Shiyarim the next day, it might also be referring to a case - where he performed the Zerikah having in mind to pour the Shirayim on to the Y'sod the following day (see also Tosfos DH 'Chishav').
(b)Rebbi Zeira resolved the She'eilah by citing Elel (the cervical ligament), that Rebbi Yochanan had taught them, based on the Mishnah in Chulin. The Tana there says that Elel is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, but not Tum'as Neveilos. It is not Metamei Tum'as Neveilos - because it is intrinsically useless.
(c)The problem with Rav Asi now is - how he could possibly argue with Rebbi Yochanan and say 'Zerikah Mehani le'Yotzei' even without a Migu?
(d)Initially, we have no way of reconciling the statement of Rav Asi's colleagues ('Mechashvin al ha'Avud ve'al ha'Saruf') with the Mishnah in Chulin.
3)
(a)How does Rava ultimately reconcile them by amending the Beraisa?
(b)What does he mean by that?
(c)What does Rav Papa say about Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotz'ei (according to Rebbi Akiva) regarding Dam?
(d)We support Rav Papa with a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa subsequently rule in a case where, after the blood left the Azarah and was returned, the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul regarding ...
1. ... Kodshei Kodshim?
2. ... Kodshim Kalim?
3)
(a)Rava ultimately reconciles them by amending the Beraisa to read - 'Mechashvin al ha'Omed le'Ibud ve'li'Sereifah', by which he means ...
(b)... that Machshavah helps on Basar which is destined to get lost or burned, provided it is not yet lost or burned at the time of the Machshavah (because once it is, it has the same Din as Elel).
(c)Rav Papa qualifies Rebbi Akiva's ruling 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotz'ei' - by restricting it to where the Basar was taken out of the Azarah, but not the Dam.
(d)We support Rav Papa with a Beraisa, which rules in a case where, after the blood left the Azarah and was returned, the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul, that ...
1. ... Kodshei Kodshim Mo'alin bo.
2. ... Kodshim Kalim Ein Mo'alin bo.
4)
(a)Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah states (in connection with the Mosar Chatas) 'ke'Shem she'Damah Poter es Besarah, Kach Poter es B'sar Chavertah'. How does Rebbi Elazar qualify this ruling?
(b)What is the reason for the distinction? Why, if the same Kohen Shechted both Chata'os one after the other, would the Zerikas ha'Dam of one of them not cover the Basar of the second one?
4)
(a)Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah states (in connection with the Mosar Chatas) 'ke'Shem she'Damah Poter es Besarah, Kach Poter es B'sar Chavertah', which Rebbi Elazar qualifies - by restricting it to where the two Chata'os were Shechted simultaneously (by two Kohanim [in which case they are considered like one body]) ...
(b)... whereas if the same Kohen Shechted both Chata'os one after the other, the Zerikas ha'Dam of one of them would not cover the Basar of the second one - since they are no longer considered like one body, but like two.
5)
(a)What did Rebbi Shimon reply, when a Zakein asked him in K'far Pani whether Rebbi Akiva really said 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'?
(b)What did his Chaverim in Galil comment, when he repeated this statement to them?
(c)And what did Rebbi Akiva reply, when Rebbi Shimon repeated to him his Chaverim's reservations?
5)
(a)When a Zakein asked Rebbi Shimon in K'far Pani whether Rebbi Akiva really said 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei' - the latter replied in the affirmative.
(b)When he repeated this statement to his Chaverim in Galil, they commented - 'But is it not Pasul? How can a Pasul Korban atone?'
(c)When Rebbi Shimon repeated his Chaverim's reservations to Rebbi Akiva, he replied - by citing the case of ha'Mafrish Chataso ve'Avdah ... , as we saw in our Mishnah.
6)
(a)Among his statements, Rebbi Akiva says 'Shachat Sheteihen ve'Harei Daman Munach be'Kosos, Mo'alin bi'Sheteihen'. Why is that?
(b)What can we extrapolate from the Lashon 'Shachat Sheteihen'?
(c)What are the ramifications of this fact?
6)
(a)Among his statements, Rebbi Akiva says 'Shachat Sheteihen ve'Harei Daman Munach be'Kosos, Mo'alin bi'Sheteihen' - because Basar Kodshei Kodshim before Zerikas ha'Dam is subject to Me'ilah (as we have already learned).
(b)We can extrapolate from the Lashon Shachat Sheteihen that - the two Chata'os were Shechted simultaneously (like Rebbi Elazar explained earlier).
(c)The ramifications of this fact are that - in the following ruling 'Nizrak Damah shel Achas Meihen ... ke'Shem she'Damah Poter es Besarah ... ', which is confined to where the two Korbanos were Shechted simultaneously, as we explained earlier.
7b----------------------------------------7b
7)
(a)What did Resh Lakish Amar Rav Hoshaya mean when he described Rebbi Akiva's statement as Teshuvah Genuvah?
(b)What did Rebbi Yochanan say about that?
(c)And he based his query on a case of two Ashamos that were designated le'Acharayus and that were both Shechted. What does Rebbi Yochanan consider obvious in a case where the Kohen then brought the Emurin of one of them on the Mizbe'ach before performing Zerikas ha'Dam on the other one?
(d)He presented a case of two Ashamos. How do we know that the same woll apply to two Chata'os?
7)
(a)When Resh Lakish Amar Rav Hoshaya described Rebbi Akiva's statement as Teshuvah Genuvah, he meant that - Rebbi Akiva's distinction between when two Chata'os are Shechted simultaneously and when they are Shechted one after the other, is not logical, because in fact, either way, the two Chata'os are considered one.
(b)Rebbi Yochanan - asked Resh Lakish in surprise whether that was what he really thought.
(c)And he based his query on a case of two Ashamos that were designated le'Acharayus and that were both Shechted. In a case where the Kohen then brought the Emurin of one of them on the Mizbe'ach before performing Zerikas ha'Dam on the other one, Rebbi Yochanan considers obvious that - the Zerikah will not cover the Emurim of the first one, which must come down from the Mizbe'ach.
(d)He presented a case of two Ashamos. We know that the same will apply to a case of two Chata'os - since their Kedushah is even stronger than that of Ashamos (see also Rabeinu Gershom).
8)
(a)What does Rebbi Yochanan prove with this (See Rabeinu Gershom)?
(b)How do we know that it is because they are considered like two bodies? Perhaps it is because Emurin that are placed on the Mizbe'ach before the Z'rikas ha'Dam must be removed? What did Ula say to the contrary (in connection with Emurei Kodshei Kalim)?
(c)Alternatively, Ula's ruling proves that Mo'alin bi'Sheteihen is not due to the fact they are considered like one body. Then what is Rebbi Akiva's reason?
(d)If on the one hand, the Zerikah of one of the Chata'os exempts even the Basar of the other one from Me'ilah, why, on the other hand, do we say 'Im Alu, Yerdu'?
8)
(a)Rebbi Yochanan proves with this that - Shechitah by Bas Achas (simultaneous Shechitah) renders the two Chata'os like one body, but not by Zeh Achar Zeh (See Rabeinu Gershom).
(b)And we know that it is because they are considered like two bodies (and not because Emurin that are placed on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikas ha'Dam must be removed), because Ula specifically said in connection with Emurei Kodshei Kalim (see Rabeinu Gershom) that were brought on the Mizbe'ach before the Z'rikas Dam - 'Im Alu Lo Yerdu'.
(c)Alternatively, Ula's ruling proves that Mo'alin bi'Sheteihen is not because they are considered like one body, but because - when they are Shechted simultaneously, then the Kohen has the option of sprinkling the blood of whichever one he pleases on the Mizbe'ach.
(d)Nevertheless, we say 'Im Alu, Yerdu' - because it is only the Emurim of the Asham or the Chatas whose blood was actually sprinkled that can complete the atonement (not those of the other one).
9)
(a)How did Resh Lakish respond to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya?
(b)What did Rebbi Yochanan mean when he commented 'Ketzatztinun le'Riglohi di'Yenuka'?
(c)How else might one read the last word in Rebbi Yochanan's comment?
9)
(a)Resh Lakish response to Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya was - silence.
(b)Rebbi Yochanan commented 'Ketzatztinun le'Riglohi di'Yenuka' - by which he meant that he had cut off the youngster's feet (proved Resh Lakish [who was younger than him] wrong).
(c)Alternatively, the last word in Rebbi Yochanan's comment ought to read (not 'di'Yenuka' but) 'de'Dayka', which means 'the one who is standing here'.
10)
(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that Z'rikas Damim by Kodshei Kodshim is sometimes Lehakeil and sometimes Lehachmir. What about Kodshim Kalim?
(b)If before the Zerikah, both ...
1. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim are subject to Me'ilah, what change takes place after the Zerikah?
2. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kalim are not subject to Me'ilah, what change takes place after the Zerikah?
10)
(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that Zerikas Damim by Kodshei Kodshim is sometimes Lehakeil and sometimes Lehachmir. With regard to Kodshim Kalim, on the other hand - it is always Lehachmir.
(b)If before the Zerikah, both ...
1. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kodshim are subject to Me'ilah, after the Zerikah - the Basar is no longer subject to Me'ilah.
2. ... the Emurim and the Basar of Kodshei Kalim are not subject to Me'ilah, after the Zerikah - the Emurim become subject to Me'ilah.
11)
(a)With regard to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah however, both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim share the same Din. What is the corollary between Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah and Zerikah?
(b)What problem do we have with the Seifa de'Reisha 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar'? What ought the Tana to have said?
(c)How do we counter this? Why does the Tana say 'Ein Mo'alin' even though there is no Isur either?
11)
(a)With regard to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah however, both Kodshei Kodshim and Kodshim Kalim share the same Din. In both cases - Z'rikas ha'Dam renders both the Emurim and the Basar subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah (Lehachmir)
(b)The problem with the Seifa de'Reisha 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar' is that - seeing as Basar Kodshei Kodshim now belongs to the Kohanim, the Tana ought to have said 'ha'Basar Mutar' (because 'Ein Mo'alin' implies that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan).
(c)And we counter this by pointing out that the Tana merely says 'Ein Mo'alin' (even though there is no Isur either) - to balance the Reisha de'Reisha, which states 'Mo'alin'.
12)
(a)We make the same inference from the Seifa de'Seifa 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar'; ha Isura Ika! Why can we not give the same answer as we gave in the Reisha?
(b)Rebbi Chanina therefore answers le'Yotz'in, ve'Rebbi Akiva Hi. What does this mean?
(c)But did Rebbi Akiva not say 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'?
12)
(a)We make the same inference from the Seifa de'Seifa 've'Ein Mo'alin be'Basar'; ha Isura Ika! We cannot give the same answer as we gave in the Reisha - because the Reisha de'Seifa also says Ein Mo'alin, so there is nothing to balance (like there is in the Reisha); and what's more, we can make the same inference there as well.
(b)Rebbi Chanina therefore answers 'le'Yotz'in, ve'Rebbi Akiva Hi', by which he means that - the Tana, who holds like Rebbi Akiva ('Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei'), is referring to a case where the Basar was taken out of the Azarah (in the case of Kodshei Kodshim) or of Yerushalayim (in the case of Kodshim Kalim) before the Z'rikas ha'Dam, to teach us ...
(c)... that Rebbi Akiva's ruling 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotzei' - is confined to taking it out of the realm of Me'ilah and to obligate S'reifah, but not to permit it to be eaten.
