1) A PART OF A KORBAN THAT HAS NO "MATIR"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a part of the Korban that has no Matir cannot become prohibited as Pigul. For this reason, the Nesachim that are brought after the Korban has been offered, or that are brought alone without a Korban, cannot become prohibited as Pigul. The Mishnah records a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to Nesachim that are brought together with a Korban. Rebbi Meir says that the Nesachim can become Pigul because the Zerikah of the blood of the animal permits the Nesachim to be offered. The Chachamim argue and say that the Nesachim cannot become Pigul. They reason that since the Nesachim can be offered after the Korban was offered, they do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted. Therefore, even when they are brought with the animal they also do not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted.
The Mishnah cites a similar dispute with regard to the Log of oil brought as part of the purification process of the Metzora. The Metzora must bring a Korban Asham as well as a Log of oil. After the Kohen slaughters the Asham, sprinkles its blood, and places some of its blood on the Metzora, he pours the oil into his hands and sprinkles the oil seven times in the direction of the Heichal. He then approaches the Metzora and places the oil on certain parts of the Metzora's body. The oil may be brought even a long time after the Korban has been offered. If the Log of oil is brought after the Korban has been offered, it cannot become prohibited as Pigul. The Tana'im argue about the law in a case in which the oil is brought together with the Korban Asham of the Metzora. Rebbi Meir says that the Log of oil can become Pigul because the Zerikah of the blood of the Asham permits the oil to be used. Rebbi Shimon argues and says that the oil cannot become Pigul. He reasons -- as the Chachamim reason with regard to the Nesachim -- that since the Log of oil can be brought after the Korban was offered, it does not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted. Therefore, even when it is brought with the Asham, it does not need the Zerikah in order to become permitted.
As TOSFOS points out (DH v'Log Shemen, at the end of the page), Rebbi Shimon appears to be the Chachamim mentioned by the Mishnah earlier. Why, then, does the Mishnah originally refer to him as the Chachamim, and later refer to him as Rebbi Shimon, implying that the two opinions expressed in the Mishnah are separate and distinct arguments?
ANSWERS:
(a) The TOSFOS CHADASHIM (on Mishnayos) and the SEFAS EMES explain that Rebbi Shimon's opinion is not identical to that of the Chachamim with regard to the Log of oil. The Gemara (44a) cites the opinion of Rebbi, who rules that although the Log cannot become Pigul through a thought that the Kohen has while he offers the Asham, nevertheless it can become Pigul through a thought that the Kohen has while he sprinkles the oil seven times towards the Heichal. The reason for this is that the Log always involves sprinkling, and the sprinkling is what permits the remainder of the Log to be consumed by the Kohanim. Perhaps the Chachamim of the Mishnah, who discuss Nesachim, agree with Rebbi that the Log can become Pigul through a thought at the time of the Haza'os. Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, maintains that anything that is not offered upon the Mizbe'ach is ineligible to become Pigul. Since the Log is not offered on the Mizbe'ach, Rebbi Shimon maintains that even a thought during the Haza'os cannot make the Log become Pigul. In this respect, he differs with the Chachamim, and for this reason the Mishnah writes that it is only Rebbi Shimon who maintains that the Log cannot become Pigul.
However, TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER, the SEFAS EMES, and the RASHASH refute this answer based on the continuation of the Gemara (44b). The Gemara there implies that the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Meir agree with Rebbi Shimon that a thought during the Haza'os of the Log will not cause it to become Pigul. Accordingly, the question returns: why does the Mishnah attribute this view only to Rebbi Shimon and not to the Chachamim?
(b) RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ uses the opposite approach to answer this question. It is true that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Shimon that the Log cannot become Pigul. However, Rebbi Shimon maintains that the Log cannot become Pigul not because it does not have a Matir, but because it is not offered on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. Therefore, the Mishnah could not write that Rebbi Shimon argues with Rebbi Meir with regard to Nesachim, since Rebbi Shimon indeed may consider Nesachim eligible to become Pigul, since they are offered on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Mishnah can say only that the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir with regard to Nesachim. With regard to the Log, the Mishnah teaches that not only do the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Meir, but Rebbi Shimon argues with him as well.
(c) Another possibility is that the Mishnah indeed should have said with regard to the Nesachim that it is Rebbi Shimon (and not the Chachamim) who argues with Rebbi Meir. The Mishnah refers to Rebbi Shimon as the Chachamim to make it appear as though his view is the majority opinion, in order to teach that the Halachah follows his view. The Mishnah uses this technique occasionally (see Gitin 20a, and Rashi there, DH Darshah; Beitzah 2b, and Rashi there, DH Man Sasam). The TOSFOS YOM TOV writes that it is for this reason that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:8) rules like Rebbi Shimon. The Mishnah later refers to him as Rebbi Shimon in order to reveal the identity of the Chachamim in the first part of the Mishnah.
2) CAUSING THE MEAT OF "PARIM HA'NISRAFIM" TO BECOME "PIGUL"
QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that Parim ha'Nisrafim can become Pigul, because the Zerikos ha'Dam permits their Eimurim to be burned on the Mizbe'ach. Why does the Mishnah not also say that the Zerikas ha'Dam permits the meat of these animals to be burned (at the Beis ha'Deshen)?
ANSWERS:
(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 18:7) writes that the meat of a Chatas ha'Nisrefes that is burned (outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and not on the Mizbe'ach) can never become Pigul, because it does not have a Matir. According to the Rambam, the Mishnah's intention is easy to understand; the Zerikah is not considered a Matir for the meat.
Apparently, the Rambam maintains that a Matir must permit something to be used for a purpose of Kaparah (atonement) or for personal use. Therefore, only an item that becomes permitted to be burned on the Mizbe'ach or to be eaten is called something which becomes permitted with a Matir. The burning of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos is done in order to destroy them, since they cannot become permitted. Therefore, the meat cannot become Pigul since it does not have a Matir.
However, TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER asks that the ruling of the Rambam seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (35a). Rebbi Elazar states that although a part of the Korban which is not readily edible cannot become Pigul if the animal was slaughtered with intention to eat that part Chutz l'Zemano, nevertheless if the animal was slaughtered with intention to eat the edible parts of the animal Chutz l'Zemano, then even the barely edible parts become Pigul as well. For example, if the Korban became Pigul, then even the fetal sac and gall bladder become Pigul. Rebbi Elazar adds that if a Chatas ha'Nisrefes is offered with intention to offer the Eimurim Chutz l'Zemano, then the meat also becomes Pigul. That is, Rebbi Elazar maintains that the meat of a Chatas ha'Nisrefes is not considered edible since the Halachah requires one to burn it. However, if the Korban becomes Pigul, then the meat becomes prohibited as Pigul as well, even though it is not truly edible.
It is clear from the words of Rebbi Elazar that the meat of the Chatas ha'Nisrefes can become Pigul. The only time it does not become Pigul is when the Chatas is offered with a thought to eat the meat Chutz l'Zemano. When it is offered with a thought to offer the Eimurim Chutz l'Zemano, then the meat does become Pigul. This contradicts the ruling of the Rambam that the meat of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos cannot become Pigul.
Perhaps the Rambam understands the words of Rebbi Elazar differently. The Gemara does not say explicitly that the meat of the Chatas ha'Nisrefes becomes Pigul, but rather that the "Parim" become Pigul through a thought to offer the Eimurim Chutz l'Zemano. Perhaps the Rambam does not explain the Gemara the way that Rashi and the other Rishonim explain it, since he maintains that there is no reason for the meat of the Parim to be considered inedible. While it is true that the Torah requires that the meat be burned, the meat nevertheless is physically edible. The Rambam instead understands that "Parim" refers to a part of the Eimurim of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos which is only partially edible, such as the fats, while the word "Eimurim" refers to the parts of the Eimurim which are fully edible, such as the kidneys. The Gemara is saying that the fats become Asur as Pigul, even though they are not fully edible, and not that the meat of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos become Asur. The meat cannot become Asur as Pigul because it has no Matir. (The Sugya that follows in the Gemara there must also be explained differently according to the Rambam.)
(b) The other Rishonim disagree with the Rambam, as mentioned above. They understand from the Gemara earlier (35a) that the meat of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos indeed has a Matir. Why, then, does the Mishnah not mention that the blood permits the meat to be burned?
The SEFAS EMES suggests that since a Chatas Chitzonis can become Pasul even if its blood merely enters the Heichal and no Haza'os are done (see 36a and Rambam, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:14), so, too, the meat of the Chatas ha'Nisrefes (Chatas Penimis) becomes fit to be burned as soon as its blood enters the Heichal, even though Haza'os were not yet performed. Therefore, the Mishnah cannot say that the Zerikah permits the meat to be burned, because it becomes permitted to be burned before the Zerikah.
However, it is not clear why the Mishnah does not state that the meat of a Chatas ha'Nisrefes is permitted to be burned when its blood enters the Heichal.
(c) Perhaps the Mishnah does not write that the Zerikah permits the Chatas ha'Nisrefes to be burned, since the Chatas would be burned even if the blood is not sprinkled! It would be burned because Kodshim that become disqualified must also be burned. It is true that after the Haza'ah it is a Mitzvah to burn the Chatas, whereas before the Haza'ah the Chatas is burned only when it has become unfit to be a Korban, and the Torah warns not to cause a Korban to become disqualified. Nevertheless, it is not accurate to say that the Haza'ah permits the meat to be burned, since it can also be burned under other circumstances. (M. KORNFELD)
43b----------------------------------------43b
3) REMOVING THE "ISURIM" OF "PIGUL," "NOSAR," AND "TAMEI"
QUESTIONS: Rebbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that if an item of Pigul, Nosar, or Tamei is offered on the Mizbe'ach, then its prohibition is annulled. Rav Chisda objected, "Is the Mizbe'ach a Mikvah that is Metaher?" Rebbi Zeira answered that the Isur becomes annulled only when the Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei become partially consumed by the fire of the Mizbe'ach.
RASHI (DH Paka) explains that the consequence of this Halachah is that when a Korban is prohibited because of Pigul, even if it is removed from the Mizbe'ach it may be returned to the Mizbe'ach. With regard to Nosar and Tamei, Rashi writes that the Isur not only is removed so that the item may be returned to the Mizbe'ach if it was taken down from the Mizbe'ach, but the Isur is also removed such that one who eats the item does not transgress an Isur d'Oraisa.
There are a number of difficulties with the words of the Gemara and Rashi.
(a) Why does Rashi distinguish between the way that the Isur of Pigul is removed and the way that the Isurim of Nosar and Tamei are removed? He should write that all of the Isurim are removed both with regard to eating them and with regard to replacing them on the Mizbe'ach! (BACH, BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH)
(b) Why does the Gemara ask that the Mizbe'ach cannot be Matir? The Mizbe'ach is always Mekadesh what is placed on it, such that even if a Korban Pasul is placed on it, it may remain there (see Mishnah on 83a)!
(c) What is the Gemara's intention when it answers that after the fire on the Mizbe'ach burns the Pigul, Nosar, or Tamei, it becomes permitted? The fire is not a "purifying Mikvah" any more than the Mizbe'ach is!
ANSWERS:
(a) The Acharonim propose various explanations, some of which are forced, to explain the words of Rashi. Below is a summary of the most straightforward of those explanations.
1. The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH answers that Rashi cannot explain that the Isur of Pigul becomes removed with regard to permitting the Korban to be eaten, because a Kometz can never become prohibited to be eaten due to an Isur of Pigul in the first place, as the Mishnah says.
The PANIM ME'IROS, however, asks that Rebbi Yochanan makes no mention of a Kometz; he states only that the Isur of Pigul becomes removed from whatever item is placed on the Mizbe'ach. Even Evarim of Pigul that are placed on the Mizbe'ach become permitted, since anything that is partially burned upon the Mizbe'ach becomes "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach," the "food of the Mizbe'ach" (see Rashi 43a, DH Lo Tzericha). Why, then, should Rashi assume that Rebbi Yochanan is referring only to a Kometz, and not to Evarim of Pigul that were placed on the Mizbe'ach?
Support for the understanding of the Birkas ha'Zevach -- that only the Kometz (or another Matir) becomes permitted after it is partially burned on the Mizbe'ach -- may be found in the words of Ula in the Gemara earlier (43a). Ula there proves that the Isur of Pigul certainly is removed from a Kometz when it is offered on the Mizbe'ach, because if the Isur would not be removed, then the rest of the animal would not be able to become Pigul (since it would not be "Karvu Matirav"). Since Ula does not say that the Isur is removed because the Kometz has become "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach," it is evident that becoming "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach" cannot remove an Isur of Pigul (see SHITAH MEKUBETZES #2). It follows that Rebbi Yochanan (43b) is not saying that the Isur Achilah of Pigul is removed from Evarim that are placed on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, he is referring to the Kometz alone.
However, the Acharonim point out that the Panim Me'iros appears to be correct. It is clear from the Gemara in Kerisus (14a) that the statements of Ula and Rebbi Yochanan apply equally to the Isur of Pigul of Evarim, and not only to the Kometz; both become "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach." (See also Rashi to Me'ilah 3b, DH Amar Lei Rav Ashi, who explains why Ula mentions only "Kometz" when his statement is true with regard to Evarim as well.) Why, then, does Ula mention that the Isur of Pigul certainly is removed because, otherwise, the rule of "Lo Karvu Matirav k'Hilchaso" would apply? That applies only to the Kometz or to another Matir! The answer is that Ula's argument indeed may be used only to prove that the Isur of Pigul is removed from a Matir, such as the Kometz. His logic is not a reason for the Isur to be removed. Rather, the reason why the Isur is removed is that the Kometz becomes "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach." Consequently, the Isur will be removed from Evarim for the same reason.
The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#2) presents a similar argument to explain why the Isurim of Nosar and Tamei are also removed from what is burned on the Mizbe'ach. Once there is a source that something burned on the Mizbe'ach becomes "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach," it follows that all Isurim will be removed for the same reason.
If the rule of Rebbi Yochanan applies to Evarim as well as to the Kometz, then the explanation of the Birkas ha'Zevach is not viable. What, then, is Rashi's intention here?
2. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#17) emends Rashi's words by adding the letter "Vav" ("v'she'Lo Yischayev ha'Ochlo Midi"). The TAHARAS HA'KODESH (who suggests this emendation on his own) explains that according to this Girsa, Rashi is saying that Rebbi Yochanan means that the Isur of Pigul is removed with regard to returning them to the Mizbe'ach, and the Isurim of Nosar and Tamei are also removed in this regard. Rashi then adds that all three Isurim are also removed with regard to their Isur Achilah.
(b) The Gemara does not accept that the Mizbe'ach can remove the Isurim, because the Mizbe'ach allows only what has been placed upon it to remain there. It cannot remove Isurim, neither with regard to permitting the objects to be eaten nor with regard to permitting them to be replaced upon the Mizbe'ach once they have been removed.
(c) The Gemara answers that once the fire has partially burned the Nosar, Pigul, or Tamei, it becomes permitted because it is "Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach." This means that the Mizbe'ach "claims" an object as its own once it has become partially burned on the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, once the object is partially burned, its Isur Achilah is removed and it may be returned to the Mizbe'ach if it is removed.
This is also the intention of Ula (43a), who proves that the Isur Pigul is removed from a Kometz once it has been offered (i.e. partially burned) on the Mizbe'ach.