ME'ILAH 8 (25 Elul) ג€“ Dedicated in memory of Yechiel Avraham Avigdor ben Eliyahu Glaser z'l, by his brother Yisrael and family. May Avigdor's children merit to grow in Torah and Yiras Shamayim, and become sources of pride and Nachas to their father in Gan Eden.
Perek Chatas ha'Of
1)
(a)Our Mishnah discusses the different stages of Isur of a Chatas ha'Of. At which stage does it enter the realm of ...
1. ... Me'ilah?
2. ... P'sul via contact with a T'vul Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim?
(b)Which other Isur takes effect after the Melikah?
(c)In which way does one transgress Me'ilah even whilst the bird is still alive?
1)
(a)Our Mishnah discusses the different stages of Isur of a Chatas ha'Of. It enter the realm of ...
1. ... Me'ilah - as soon as it has been declared Hekdesh.
2. ... P'sul via contact with a T'vul Yom or a Mechusar Kipurim - immediately after the Melikah ...
(b)... at which point, it is also joined by - the Isur of Linah (the prohibition of leaving it off the Mizbe'ach until the following day-break).
(c)One transgresses Me'ilah even whilst the bird is still alive - by selling it.
2)
(a)At which stage does a Chatas ha'Of enter the realm of Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah?
(b)Which Isur falls away at the same time?
(c)Why is that?
2)
(a)A Chatas ha'Of enters the realm of Pigul, Nosar and Tum'ah - following the Haza'ah ...
(b)... at which point the Isur Me'ilah falls away ...
(c)... because it has now become fit for the Kohanim to eat.
3)
(a)What do we extrapolate from the Lashon of the Tana 'Niml'kah, Huchsh'rah Lipasel bi'Tevul-Yom ... ? What ought he to have otherwise said?
(b)We therefore establish the author of our Mishnah as the Rabbanan of Aba Shaul, who says in a Beraisa that a T'vul-Yom is a Rishon regarding Kodesh. What are the ramifications of that ruling?
3)
(a)We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Tana 'Niml'kah, Huchsh'rah Lipasel bi'Tevul-Yom ... ' (rather than Litamei) that - whatever is touched by it becomes Tamei, but cannot transmit Tum'ah to others (which effectively means that it is a Revi'i le'Tum'ah).
(b)We therefore establish the author of our Mishnah as the Rabbanan of Aba Shaul, who says in a Beraisa that a T'vul-Yom is a Rishon regarding Kodesh, which in effect means that - it makes a Sheini, which in turn makes a Sh'lishi by Kodesh (which can still make a Revi'i) and a Sh'lishi by Terumah (which cannot make a Revi'i).
8b----------------------------------------8b
4)
(a)What problem do we have with regard to our Mishnah's ruling 'Huzah Damah ... ve'Ein bah Me'ilah'?
(b)How does Rebbi Chanina solve it?
(c)How does Rav Huna Amar Rav prove from the current case in our Mishnah ('Huzah Damah, Chayavin alav Mishum Pigul ... ve'Ein bah Me'ilah') that Mitzuy Dam is not Me'akev (crucial)?
(d)Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav on the other hand, maintains that it is. How does he therefore amend our Mishnah?
4)
(a)The problem with regard to our Mishnah's ruling 'Huzah Damah ... ve'Ein bah Me'ilah' is that - it implies that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (like we extrapolated on the previous Daf), even though the Basar of Chatas ha'Of belongs to the Kohanim (to eat).
(b)Rebbi Chanina solves it by establishing the case - by Yotzin according to Rebbi Akiva (like he did in the Seifa there), which cannot be eaten.
(c)Rav Huna Amar Rav proves from the current case in our Mishnah ('Huzah Damah, Chayavin alav Mishum Pigul ... ve'Ein bah Me'ilah') that Mitzuy Dam is not Me'akev (crucial) that - since, bearing in mind that at the time of the Haza'ah, Mitzuy ha'Dam has not yet taken place, if it was Me'akev, the Tana ought to have listed the criterion for Pigul, Nosar, Tum'ah and Me'ilah as Mitzuy ha'Dam, and not Haza'ah.
(d)Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav on the other hand, maintains that Mitzuy ha'Dam is no less crucial than Haza'ah, and he therefore amends our Mishnah to read - 'Mitzah Damah' (instead of 'Huzah Damah'), Chayavin alav Mishum Pigul ... '.
5)
(a)What do we try to prove from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei ... Chatas hi"?
(b)On whom does this pose a Kashya?
(c)To answer the Kashya, we cite Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael. How does Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael explain ...
1. ... "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam"?
2. ... "Chatas hi"? To what does it pertain?
5)
(a)We try to prove from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam Yimatzei ... Chatas hi" that - the Mitzuy (of the blood that remains) is considered part of the Avodas Chatas, in which case, it ought to be Me'akev ...
(b)... a Kashya on Rav Huna.
(c)To answer the Kashya, we cite Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who explains ...
1. ... "ve'ha'Nish'ar ba'Dam" to mean that - if blood remains, then Mitzuy is required, but if not, it doesn't matter.
2. ... that "Chatas hi" - pertains to Haza'ah referred to earlier in the Pasuk.
6)
(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael from the Pasuk there (in connection with the Sheyarei Minchah) "ve'ha'Noseres mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav". What does he prove from there?
(b)And he refutes the possible suggestion that there too, it doesn't really matter if there are no Shirayim, from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there extrapolate from the suffixes in the words "mi'Sol*tah* u'mi'Sham*nah* al Kol Levona*sah*" that proves his point?
(c)Rav Ashi rejects Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's proof however, on the grounds that "ve'ha'Noseres mimenah" is superfluous. What does he mean by that? How does that answer the Kashya?
6)
(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael from the Pasuk there (in connection with the Sheyarei Minchah) "ve'ha'Noseres mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav". He proves from there that - Mitzuy is crucial to the Chatas ha'Of just as the Avodas ha'Shirayim is to the Minchah.
(b)And he refutes the possible suggestion that there too, it doesn't really matter if there are no Shirayim, from the Beraisa, where the Tana extrapolates from the suffixes in the words "mi'Sol*tah* u'mi'Sham*nah* al Kol Levona*sah*" that - if any of the remaining flour, oil or any of the Levonah goes missing, the Minchah is Pasul, and presumably, the same will apply to the blood that remains after the Haza'ah.
(c)Rav Ashi rejects Acha b'rei de'Rava's proof however, on the grounds that "ve'ha'Noseres mimenah" is superfluous - since the Torah writes "ve'ha'Noseres (min ha'Minchah)" a second time, and whenever the Torah repeats something in the realm of Kodshim, it means that it is Me'akev. Whereas no such repetition appears with regard to Mitzuy ha'Dam (which is therefore not Me'akev, just as Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learned.
7)
(a)Avuhah di'Shmuel queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which discusses Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of where the Kohen performed the Melikah or the Mitzuy with a Machshavah Pesulah. What distinction does the Tana draw between a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekoman and a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanan?
(b)What does Avuhah di'Shmuel try to prove from the fact that the Beraisa includes a P'sul Machshavah by Mitzuy in the Din of Pigul?
(c)And he answers 'li'Tzedadin Katani'. What does he mean by that?
7)
(a)Avuhah di'Shmuel queries Rav Huna from a Beraisa, which discusses Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of where the Kohen performed the Melikah or the Mitzuy with a Machshavah Pesulah. The Tana there draws a distinction between a Machsheves Chutz li'Mekoman - which is Pasul but is not subject to Kareis (should one eat it) and a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanan - which is subject to Kareis as well.
(b)From the fact that the Beraisa includes a P'sul Machshavah by Mitzuy in the Din of Pigul, he tries to prove that - Mitzuy is Me'akev (a Kashya on Rav Huna).
(c)And he answers 'li'Tzedadin Katani', by which he means that - although Melikah (mentioned by the Tana) refers to both Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of, Mitzuy refers specifically to Chatas ha'Of, which is only subject to Mitzuy, and not to Haza'ah.
8)
(a)How does Rav Papa explain Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael's statement 'Shirayim Me'akvin'?
(b)How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa that we just learned, where Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns that it is not?
8)
(a)Rav Papa explains Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael's statement 'Shirayim Me'akvin' - with regard to Mitzuy Chatas ha'Of.
(b)We reconcile this with the Beraisa that we just learned, where Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learns that it is not - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im as to what Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael actually holds.
