OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the opinion of Rebbi Shimon regarding blood of Korbanos which is ready to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Shimon maintains that such blood is considered to have been sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach already. Similarly, according to Rebbi Shimon, an object which the Torah requires to be destroyed is considered to have been destroyed even before it is physically burned. The Chachamim argue and maintain that it is not considered destroyed until it is actually burned.

Which opinion does the Halachah follow?

(a) RASHI (102a, DH Me'ilah Mishum) writes that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. The RAN in Gitin (10a of the pages of the Rif) states that even though a Get written on an object from which one is forbidden to derive benefit is a valid Get, a Get written on an object that the Torah requires to be destroyed (such as a loaf of Chametz on Pesach) is invalid according to Rebbi Shimon, because Rebbi Shimon views the material on which the Get was written as already destroyed and non-existent. The BEIS SHMUEL (EH 124:2) explains that the letters of the Get are considered as though they are floating in the air.

The REMA (EH 124:1) rules like the Ran.

(b) The CHELKAS MECHOKEK (EH 124:1) writes that he does not understand why the Rema cites the Ran, since the Ran's statement was said only according to the view of Rebbi Shimon, while the Halachah follows the view of the Chachamim. The Chelkas Mechokek asserts that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 4:19) rules according to the Chachamim as well.

The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (Hilchos Gerushin 4:2) quotes the PRI CHADASH (EH 124:1, DH ume'Atah) who cites further proof that the Rambam rules like the Chachamim. The Gemara asks that according to Rebbi Shimon, how can a Parah Adumah and Nosar become Tamei? Since the Torah requires that they be burned, they should be considered as though they have been burned already, and thus they should not be able to become Tamei. The Gemara answers that because these objects are holy, they are an exception to Rebbi Shimon's rule and they are able to become Tamei even though they are supposed to be destroyed (see following Insight). The Gemara's words imply that objects that are not holy, but which the Torah requires to be destroyed, do not become Tamei. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 1:25) rules that fruit of Orlah and other prohibited objects that must be burned can become Tamei. This implies that the Rambam does not learn like Rebbi Shimon, but rather like the Chachamim who say that objects which must be burned are not considered to be destroyed until they are actually burned.

Therefore, the Pri Chadash rules that a Get written on an object that must be destroyed is a valid Get. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the opinion of Rebbi Shimon regarding blood of Korbanos which is ready to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Shimon maintains that such blood is considered to have been sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach already. Similarly, according to Rebbi Shimon, an object which the Torah requires to be destroyed is considered to have been destroyed even before it is physically burned. Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana that according to Rebbi Shimon, why are a Parah Adumah and Nosar subject to Tum'as Ochlin? Since the Torah requires that they be burned, they should be considered destroyed already and non-existent, and they should not be able to become Tamei.

Rav Kahana answered that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes the Parah Adumah and Nosar fit to become Tamei. Even though they are considered nothing more than ashes according to Rebbi Shimon, their special quality of being Kadosh makes them fit to become Tamei.

The principle that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes the Parah Adumah fit to become Tamei seems to contradict an earlier statement of Rebbi Shimon (101b). Rebbi Shimon states that a Parah Adumah can become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin, even though it is not proper food since it is forbidden to be eaten. It becomes Tamei because it was considered proper food, and was permitted to be eaten, before it was designated as a Parah Adumah.

Why does the Gemara earlier say that the reason why a Parah Adumah can become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin is that it is considered food, since it was once permitted to be eaten, and the Gemara does not give the reason of "Chibas ha'Kodesh" as the Gemara here says?

ANSWER: TOSFOS in Bava Kama (77a, DH Parah) answers in the name of the RI that the principle of "Chibas ha'Kodesh" applies only to objects that are not considered food; "Chibas ha'Kodesh" makes such objects fit to become Tamei even though they are not food. However, "Chibas ha'kodesh" cannot make forbidden food -- such as the Parah Adumah -- become permitted food and become fit to become Tamei. An additional reason is necessary in order for Parah Adumah to be able to become Tamei. Therefore, the Gemara earlier says that since it was once permitted food, it is considered food now and can become Tamei. (See also Tosfos to 101a, end of DH Pigel, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES #7.)

This answer resolves another difficulty. The Gemara in Pesachim (17a) states that liquids in the Beis ha'Mikdash can never become Tamei. Mid'Oraisa, no liquids can become Tamei with Tum'as Ochlin; the Torah teaches that although they are edible food items, liquids do not become Tamei. The Chachamim decreed that ordinary liquids can become Tamei, but the Chachamim did not apply the decree to liquids that are Kodesh. Why, though, does "Chibas ha'Kodesh" not make the liquids be considered like food and become fit to be Mekabel Tum'ah? (See SHITAH MEKUBETZES to Bava Kama 77a, DH Hiksheh, in the name of RABEINU MOSHE.)

The answer is that "Chibas ha'Kodesh" only adds an element to an object (such as by giving an inedible object the status of food). It cannot remove something from an item. It cannot remove the prohibition against eating the Parah Adumah. Similarly, it cannot remove the Torah's Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that liquids do not become Tamei. (D. BLOOM)