# dafyomi

lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE NEED FOR A VERSE TO TEACH THAT KORBANOS ARE VALID WITH ONLY ONE SPRINKLING</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to Beis Hillel, the verse of 'v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech' (Devarim 12:27) is not needed to teach that Korbanos that require multiple sprinklings are valid when only one is done. Since Beis Hillel maintains that a Korban Chatas is valid b'Di'eved when only one sprinkling is done, all other Korbanos are derived from Korban Chatas.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (36b, DH Minayin) asks that if this is correct, the discussion of the Gemara earlier (36b-37a), which assumes that a verse is necessary to teach that a Korban is valid when only one sprinkling is done, follows only the opinion of Beis Shamai. Moreover, the Beraisa -- which asks for the source for this law and does not answer that it is derived from the Korban Chatas -- follow the view of Beis Shamai. This is problematic, because the Gemara usually does not get involved in discussions about the view of Beis Shamai, unless the Halachah follows his view. Does the Gemara and Beraisa indeed follow the view of Beis Shamai?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara must follow the view of Beis Hillel. He explains that the word 'Saviv' might mean that the multiple sprinklings required are considered components of a single Zerikah, and thus if only one sprinkling is done, it is considered as though only half of a Zerikah was done. Therefore, the acceptability of such a Korban cannot be derived from the Korban Chatas, where it is considered as though an entire sprinkling was done.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that one might have thought that the Torah mentions the word 'Saviv' (which implies two sprinklings that are four) many times in order to teach that 'Saviv' must be done or the Korban is invalid. Accordingly, the law cannot be derived from the Korban Chatas, and a special verse ('v'Dam Zevachecha') is needed to teach that the Korban is valid b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos has difficulties these two approaches, and therefore he suggests that the Beraisa indeed follows the view of Beis Shamai, because, according to . The question of the Beraisa is how we know that one sprinkling is enough. It would seem that we should derive from Chatas that two sprinklings are required!
</p><p>
(d) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> answers based on an extensive analysis of the Gemara's discussion of the position of Beis Hillel. He asks that according to Rav Huna (37b), who says that Beis Hillel's reasoning is that the verses of 'Keranos' indicate four sprinklings and teach that three are l'Chatchilah and only one is absolutely required, how does Beis Hillel know to interpret the verses in this way? Perhaps all four sprinklings are required! It must be that the source that one sprinkling is valid b'Di'eved for a Chatas (as well as for other Korbanos) in fact is the verse, 'v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech.' (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) HOW DOES BEIS HILLEL UNDERSTAND THE WORD 'B'SUKOS'?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (36b) discusses the minimum number of Zerikos which must be done for a Korban Chatas to be valid. Beis Hillel maintains that only one Zerikah is absolutely necessary, while Beis Shamai requires two.
</p><p>
The Gemara (37b) discusses the reasoning of Beis Hillel. According to one explanation, Beis Hillel derives his ruling from the three words 'Karnos' ('corners') written in the Parshah of the Korban Chatas, one spelled with a Vav and two without a Vav. Beis Hillel follows the opinion that 'Yesh Em la'Masores' (Halachos are learned from the verse based on the way it is written), and thus the number indicated by these three words 'Karnos' is four. Accordingly, one Zerikah is absolutely necessary ('Me'akev') and the other three are required only l'Chatchilah. Beis Shamai, in contrast, follows the opinion that 'Yesh Em la'Mikra' (Halachos are learned from the verse based on the way it is read), and thus the number indicated by these words is six; since there are only four corners on the Mizbe'ach, the extra two teach that two Zerikos are the absolute minimum.
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's second explanation, Beis Hillel considers both the Masores (the way the verse is written, which implies four corners) and the Mikra (the way the verse is read, which implies six corners), and thus he considers it as though five corners are written. Since there are only four corners on the Mizbe'ach, the extra one teaches that one Zerikah is the absolute minimum.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if Beis Hillel expounds both the Masores and the Mikra, then he should require five walls for a Sukah. In the Parshah of Sukah, three words 'b'Sukos' are written, one spelled with a Vav and two without a Vav. The Masores implies four, while the Mikra implies six, and thus Beis Hillel, who expounds both, should require <i>five</i> walls. The Gemara answers that one word 'b'Sukos' is needed to teach the context (the basic Mitzvah of Sukah), one is needed to teach the requirement of Sechach, and the remaining three teach the requirement for three walls.
</p><p>
What is the meaning of the Gemara's answer? According to Beis Hillel, how is the calculation made for how many walls a Sukah must have?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Hasam) explains that 'one entire verse' of 'b'Sukos' (without a second Vav) is used to teach that one must have a Sukah. One part of the second 'b'Sukos' (without a second Vav) is used to teach that Sechach is required. The second part of the second 'b'Sukos' teaches one wall, and the remaining 'b'Sukos' (with a second Vav) teaches two walls. A Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that the three walls may be comprised of two walls and a Tefach.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> writes that the Gemara and Rashi should read 'take away one ['b'Sukos'] for the topic itself, and one for the Sechach.,' and not, 'one entire verse.' In other words, these three verses indicate either six (according to Mikra) or four (according to Masores) walls, so that together they imply five. One is used for the topic of Sukah and one is used for the Sechach, leaving three to teach the three walls, before the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that one wall may be a Tefach.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> and <b>BACH</b> preserve the text of 'one entire word.' However, they cannot explain the derivation as the Rashash does, because once an entire word 'b'Sukos' is taken away, only two walls are implied (one 'b'Sukos' is used for itself, one for the Sechach, and two for the walls), and the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai teaches that one could be a Tefach. This clearly is not a valid opinion.
</p><p>
It is possible that the Shitah Mekubetzes and Bach understand the Gemara (and Rashi) as follows. Beis Hillel derives the number five because of a doubt about whether to expound Masores or Mikra. However, in the case of Sukah, the Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that teaches that 'the third wall is a Tefach' clearly implies that the verses of 'b'Sukos' should be read according to Mikra (six) and not Masores (four). This is because there is no way to derive Masores and remain with a third wall after deriving one for the topic of Sukah and another for the Sechach.
</p><p>
This explanation provides a precise understanding of the words of Rashi. Rashi says that after 'one entire word' is used for the Sukah itself, the other words teach four walls, and after another word 'b'Sukos' is used for the Sechach, the other words teach three walls. Rashi says, 'The Halachah was said in this manner, that it is enough for the third wall to be a Tefach.' According to the Rashash's explanation, why does Rashi need to say, 'The Halachah was said in this manner...'? It is clear that this Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai was the deciding factor which influenced Beis Hillel to read the verses based on Mikra in this case. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
(This may be the intent of the Bach, who cryptically adds at the end of his note, 'Ahani Mikra.' Perhaps he understands that this is the text of the Gemara in order to show that in this case, Beis Hillel expounds the verse only according to Mikra. Moreover, it should be noted that Tosfos in Sanhedrin (4a, DH Kulhu) points out that the Tana'im expound verses according to either Mikra or Masores depending on the context of the verses. The Tana'im did not necessarily always follow one approach over the other.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WALLS OF A SUKAH <span class='indexentry'>[Sukah: walls]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	37b:</span> The Torah writes 'Keranos' two times without a 'Vov', and once with a Vov. The Mikra (the way words are pronounced) connotes six, and the Mesores (the way words are written) connotes four. Beis Hillel expound both, and consider it as if five were written.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Beis Hillel should expound 'ba'Sukos' similarly! It is written twice without a 'Vov', and once with a Vov. They should require five walls in a Sukah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> One is needed for context (and is not expounded). One teaches about the Sechach. The other three teach about walls. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that one of the three walls can be as small as a Tefach (and a drop, if it is positioned properly).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sukah 7a (Beraisa):</span> A Sukah wall is like a wall for Shabbos, provided that there are not three Tefachim between poles. There is a stringency of Shabbos over Sukah. A Mechitzah is valid for Shabbos only if Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz (the width of what stands exceeds the gaps). This does not apply to Sukah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 2a (Mishnah):</span> If (the opening of the Mavoy) is wider than 10 Amos, it must be reduced (through a wall in the middle). If it has Tzuras ha'Pesach (a vertical beam on each side and a beam on top of them), even if it is wider than 10, it need not be reduced.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	11a:</span> Rav Yehudah taught Chiya bar Rav (that the Mishnah says) it need not be reduced.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rav (to Rav Yehudah):</span> (Even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, the text says that) it must be reduced!</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Sukah 4:12):</span> If a Sukah has many openings and gaps in the walls it is Kosher. This is even if Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed (the width of the gaps exceeds the width of what stands). However, if there is a gap of more than 10 Amos, then the Parutz may not exceed the Omed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishnah:</span> The Rambam learns from the Beraisa that requires Omed Merubah for Shabbos, but not for Sukah. The Rambam permits Parutz Merubah only for the third wall of the Sukah. The Rambam forbids this for Shabbos even when there is Tzuras ha'Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> It is difficult to say that the only leniency of Sukah is the third wall. If so, why did the Rambam need to write this? He already said that a Tefach suffices for the third wall! Rather, the Magid Mishneh means that Parutz Merubah is Kosher only for the third wall. We see that a Tefach suffices, therefore, Chachamim were lenient to allow Parutz Merubah also when the third wall extends across the entire side. However, the two walls must be like for Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (OC 75:5):</span> The Beis Yosef explains that Rashi and the Rosh explain that the Beraisa discusses Omed Merubah in all the walls together. Presumably, the Magid Mishnah disagrees, for otherwise he would have explained the Rambam similarly.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Sukah 1:8):</span> The Yerushalmi says that some things are Kosher for a Sukah and Pasul for a Mavuy, and vice-versa, e.g. four Dukranin (sticks), or two walls and a Tefach, and a wall with an opening more than 10 Amos. Shabbos is more stringent than Sukah, for a Tefach suffices for Sukah, but Shabbos requires Omed Merubah. I.e. if the width of the openings without Tzuras ha'Pesach join with what is Parutz to be Mevatel what stands. This does not apply to Sukah, for which two walls and a Tefach suffice, even if the two walls have many openings without Tzuras ha'Pesach. (This is like Rashi.) The Rambam (12, and Sefer ha'Mitzvos) says that if there is a gap of more than 10 Amos, even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, then the Parutz cannot exceed the Omed. This is astounding. The Mishnah says that if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, one need not diminish (the opening)! The Halachah does not follow Rav, who corrected the text to say 'one must diminish.' Regarding Tzuras ha'Pesach, we do not distinguish between more or less than 10 Amos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (OC 630 DH u'Moreinu):</span> The Mizrachi answers (for the Rambam) that there is no source that with Tzuras ha'Pesach we do not distinguish between 10 and more than 10. Perhaps the Mishnah permits more than 10 with Tzuras ha'Pesach, just like less than 10, but they are not identical. We equate them to say that the breach does not disqualify the wall, but we can say that less than 10 is permitted even if Parutz Merubah, but more than 10 with Tzuras ha'Pesach is permitted only if Omed Merubah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 630:5):</span> If a Sukah is Kosher through two walls like a Gam (a Greek Gamma, like an L-shape) and a Tefach with Tzuras ha'Pesach, even if in the two walls there are many openings without Tzuras ha'Pesach, even if Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed, it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (6):</span> We calculate the Parutz in the two totally Parutz walls with the openings. If it exceeds the Omed in the two walls, this is Parutz Merubah that is Kosher according to Rashi. This implies that the walls themselves are Omed Merubah. However, Rashi wrote above that a Sukah wall is Kosher with just vertical sticks less than three Tefachim apart. The walls themselves are Parutz Merubah! We must distinguish when  there is no big breach, just each is less than three Tefachim. Then, we permit even if Parutz Merubah in that wall. Due to Lavud, it is like a solid wall. When there is a breach more than three Tefachim, and we want to permit because it is like an opening, then we require Omed Merubah in (the rest of) that wall. If not, the breach is not considered an opening. This is even if the entire wall (including the breach) is Parutz Merubah. This is explicit in Rashi. Why did the Poskim omit it?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (38):</span> When there is a breach more than three Tefachim, the Taz requires Omed Merubah, and he considers gaps less than three to be Parutz. Ma'amar Mordechai disagrees, for less than three is considered Omed, due to Lavud.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (6):</span> We permit Parutz Merubah overall, but not in the two solid walls.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Gra:</span> Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for Shi'ur Sukah, even though it helps for Shabbos. If it did, there would be no need for the tradition that the third wall can be a mere Tefach, for through Tzuras ha'Pesach it is like a solid wall! Also, we would not need a Tefach. For Shabbos, sticks (less than three Tefachim apart) suffice! Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for the corner (between the two solid walls).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (22):</span> The Magen Avraham (Reish ha'Siman) holds that mid'Rabanan, we apply Lavud only if there are four walls, but not if there are only three.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (23):</span> We permit Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed only if there is a significant Shi'ur in the Omed, i.e. four Tefachim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> However, it cannot have openings in the corners, for the walls must join like a Gam.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (7):</span> This refers to all the walls. It suffices if two walls meet in a corner.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (25):</span> The Rema said corners (plural) to teach that when there are four solid walls, he should not make openings in all the corners, for then two walls do not meet in a corner. He may make openings in three corners.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Ki):</span> There may be a gap less than three Tefachim in the corner, for through Lavud it is considered closed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> However, there cannot be an opening more than 10 Amos.  If it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, there can be an opening more than 10 Amos.  The Rambam holds that even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, an opening more than 10 Amos disqualifies unless Omed Merubah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>		Beis Yosef (DH v'Im):</span> Rashi explains that all kinds of walls that Chachamim permitted, e.g. a wall of vertical sticks without horizontal sticks (Eruvin 16b), even if the sticks are only a finger wide and are almost three Tefachim apart and Parutz Merubah, is fine, due to Lavud. It is as if the entire wall stands. Alternatively, a wall can consist of three horizontal ropes (if the sum width exceeds a Tefach, if they are almost three Tefachim apart, they can form a wall of 10 Tefachim) through Lavud. The sticks cannot be more than three Tefachim apart, for then Lavud does not apply. This is if it is more than three Tefachim in many places. If it is only in one or two places, they are like openings. A wall is invalid for Shabbos if there are many openings without Tzuras ha'Pesach, and they Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed. For Sukah this is Kosher. Even the two walls can be mostly Parutz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Rabbeinu):</span> R. Yerucham says that according to Rashi, the Beraisa is Machshir for Sukah even if the Omed is less than the seven Tefachim needed for Hechsher Sukah. It seems that the Rosh agrees. Some explain that Parutz Merubah is Kosher only in a big Sukah, when the sum of the Omed is at least Hechsher Sukah. This refers to openings without Tzuras ha'Pesach. If they have Tzuras ha'Pesach, it is Kosher even for Shabbos, even without Hechsher Sukah. The same applies if there are many windows with recognizable walls. My Rebbi, R. Avraham ben Asma'el, said that there are four measures of Sukah walls. 1) An opening is unlike a wall. If there is not Omed as much as Shi'ur Sukah in one place, rather, it is scattered with openings in between, it is Kosher as long as each wall has Omed k'Shi'ur Sukah, even if the opening is more than 10. 2) When there is Parutz more than three Tefachim between the Omed without Tzuras ha'Pesach, if Parutz Merubah, it is Mevatel the Omed if there is no Shi'ur Sukah without a break. 3) If Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz, if the Omed in each wall is Shi'ur Sukah it is Kosher. 4) If each Parutz is less than three Tefachim, it is Kosher even if Parutz Merubah; the Parutz joins to complete the Shi'ur Sukah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'ar ha'Tziyon (25):</span> The first opinion in the Shulchan Aruch permits even if Parutz Merubah even when we consider what has Tzuras ha'Pesach to be closed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (26,27):</span> A gap more than 10 Amos is a breach, unless if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach.Then, it is an opening.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rema:</span> Nowadays the custom is to make complete walls, because nnot everyone is proficient in the laws of walls. If one does not have enough (for four complete walls), it is better to make three complete walls than four incomplete walls.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (28):</span> 'Complete' walls means without relying on Lavud or Tzuras ha'Pesach. The Ritz Ge'us says that ideally, three walls should be totally closed, and the only gap is the opening.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF 'ONE ABOVE AND THREE BELOW'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which gives a different source for Beis Hillel's position that if the blood of a Chatas was thrown above the Chut ha'Sikra only once, it is valid b'Di'eved. The Torah says, 'v'Chiper' ('and he will atone') three times. Each word 'v'Chiper' teaches that the Korban is valid even without the prescribed number of Zerikos. Hence, the first 'v'Chiper' teaches that three Zerikos suffice, the second 'v'Chiper' teaches that two suffice, and the third teaches that even one Zerikah suffices b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that we should derive from the three words 'v'Chiper' that the Korban is valid even when the blood is sprinkled <i>below</i> the Chut ha'Sikra. The first 'v'Chiper' should teach that one of the Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra, the second should teach that two Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra, and the third should teach that all of the Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
Rava answers that each time the Torah says 'v'Chiper,' it excludes one corner of the Mizbe'ach (above the Chut ha'Sikra) from having to have the blood land on it. Accordingly, the last 'v'Chiper' excludes only the second to last corner, but it cannot exclude the last corner, which is above the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara entertain the possibility that no Zerikos are required (b'Di'eved) above the Chut ha'Sikra? How does the Gemara make the leap from saying that the second 'v'Chiper' should teach that only two corners are required, while the last 'v'Chiper' should teach that <i>none</i> are required? It stands to reason that <i>one</i> still should be required! (Although the Gemara later does change the question and asks that only one corner should be required, what is the reasoning behind the Gemara's original question?)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Chiper) answers that the Gemara skips the step of 'one above and three below' because the way three Zerikos would be done below would be by doing one Zerikah on the side (the lower corner) of the Mizbe'ach that would divide into two, and one on a different side that would not divide into two, but rather be one. There is no Korban that requires four Zerikos with a Zerikah on one side alone. (All Korbanos that require four Zerikos require two Zerikos that each divide into two.) Therefore, the third 'v'Chiper' does not have to exclude one above and three below, as this obviously is not valid.
</p><p>
Tosfos addresses the obvious question on his answer. The first 'v'Chiper' is required to exclude one below and three above. Why, though, would one have thought that this is valid if, as mentioned above, there is no Korban that requires four Zerikos with a Zerikah on one side alone?
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that while this is a problem for both the case of one above and three below, and the case of one below and three above, the former case has the additional issue that the Zerikos of a Chatas are supposed to be done above the Chut ha'Sikra. Accordingly, these two problems together (the wrong place, and an abnormal manner of sprinkling) certainly invalidate the Zerikah. In contrast, in the case of one below and three above, the Zerikah may be valid despite the abnormal sprinkling (since three Zerikos were done in the proper place). This is the basis for the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that Rava's answer is a refutation of this logic. Rava claims that if the case of three below is not considered a possibility because one of the Zerikos will be a solitary one, the case of three above and one below also should not be considered a possibility. However, if this is true, then the three verses of 'v'Chiper' are not necessary; two suffice to teach that all Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. Since there are three verses of 'v'Chiper,' it must be that the Beraisa's teaching, that one sprinkling must be done above the Chut ha'Sikra, is correct.
</p><p>
(When the Gemara asks that the third 'v'Chiper' should teach that at least one sprinkling above and three below are required (as opposed to the Beraisa's teaching that one above is enough), the Gemara now rejects the logic mentioned above, that there is no need to exclude one above and three below.)
</p><p>
(b) A parenthetical comment in Tosfos explains <b>RASHI's</b> (DH Eizehu) understanding of the Gemara. Rashi understands that the reason why the Gemara, in its question, skips from two below to four below is that if three below would be permitted, this would constitute a majority of the Zerikos, and thus four Zerikos below also should be permitted (because of 'Rubo k'Kulo,' 'most is like all').
</p><p>
Rava's answer is that four verses of 'v'Chiper' should be required in order to teach that all four Zerikos may be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. Rava maintains that we cannot rely on the principle of 'Rubo k'Kulo' to permit all of the Zerikos to be done below the Chut ha'Sikra. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
38b----------------------------------38b
</p><p>
<font><b>3) POURING THE LEFTOVER BLOOD AT NIGHT</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan teaches that the last three Zerikos of the blood of a Chatas (according to Beis Hillel) may not be done at night. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Amar Rebbi Yochanan) explains that although these Zerikos are not 'complete Zerikos,' since their absence does not invalidate the Korban (since one suffice, b'Di'eved, according to Beis Hillel), they still may not be done at night because the blood becomes invalid at sunset.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan's words imply that only the last three Zerikos must be done during the day, while the pouring of the leftover blood (Shefichas Shirayim) may done at night. This is also implied by Rav Papa's statement later in the Gemara, that the last three Zerikos are invalid when done at night because they are 'like their beginning' (like the first Zerikah). This implies that if they would be 'like their end' (like the Shefichas Shirayim), they would be valid at night.
</p><p>
What is the Halachah? May the pouring of the leftover blood be done at night?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMON</b> quotes many Acharonim, including the <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b>, who maintain that the pouring of the leftover blood may be done at night. This is also the opinion of the <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> in <b>LIKUTEI HALACHOS</b>.
</p><p>
The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (29:2) quotes the Yerushalmi (Yoma 5:6) which strongly supports this opinion. The Yerushalmi is in doubt about whether the pouring of the leftover blood may be done at night, according to the opinion that the validity of the Korban depends upon the pouring of the leftover blood. This clearly implies that according to the opinion (which the Halachah follows) that the Korban's validity does not depend on the pouring of the leftover blood (and it is just a Mitzvah to pour the leftover blood), the leftover blood certainly may be poured at night.
</p><p>
(b) However, the Eizehu Mekoman quotes others, such as the <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (#144), who maintain that the pouring of the leftover blood may not be done at night. This is also the opinion of the <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Likutim, end of #1). How do these Acharonim understand the Gemara here which implies that the leftover blood may be poured at night?
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish explains that the leftover blood becomes invalid, like all blood of a Korban becomes invalid at sunset. Although Rav Papa says that the three Zerikos are 'like their beginning,' he clearly does not mean to say that if they would be 'like their end,' their sprinkling at night would be valid, like the pouring of the leftover blood would be valid. This is evident from the fact that he says that a Kohen, and not a Zar, must sprinkle the last three Zerikos, and they must be done from a Kli Shares. It is clear that the pouring of the leftover blood must be done by a Kohen, and not a Zar, and it also requires a Kli Shares. Therefore, one cannot infer from Rav Papa's words that the opposite laws apply to the pouring of the leftover blood.
</p><p>
However, the Kehilos Yakov (29:2) points out that <b>RASHI</b> (DH Chutz) seems to disagree with the Chazon Ish's assertion that the blood becomes invalid at night. Rashi writes, 'They (the three Zerikos) cannot be done at night, because they have become disqualified from being sprinkled, and this is considered a sprinkling.' Why does Rashi add, 'And this is considered a sprinkling'? Apparently, his intention is to say that the pouring of the blood is not a sprinkling, and therefore is valid at night. In other words, sunset renders the blood invalid only for sprinkling, but not for pouring. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) RAV PAPA'S OPINION</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Torah states that clothing onto which the blood of a Chatas splashed must be washed in the Azarah (see Vayikra 6:20 and <b>RASHI</b> there, DH v'Asher Yazeh). However, the Mishnah later (93a) teaches that if blood sprayed from the neck of a slaughtered Korban onto clothing, the clothing does not need to be washed. Similarly, if the blood that splashed onto the clothing came from the 'Keren or Yesod (of the Mizbe'ach),' the clothing does not need to be washed.
</p><p>
The Gemara here (38b) quotes Rav Papa who explains that this Mishnah implies that if the blood is not from the Keren, but rather is fit for the Keren -- that is, it is blood from any of the last three Zerikos of a Chatas (which, if not performed, do not invalidate the Korban) -- the clothing requires washing.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions the statement of Rav Papa. The same Mishnah says that if the blood is from the Yesod, the clothing does not need to be washed. Does this mean that if the blood is 'appropriate for the Yesod,' a reference to the leftover blood that is poured on the Yesod, the clothing must be washed? Leftover blood that spills on clothing should not necessitate the washing of the clothing.
</p><p>
Rav Papa answers that the Tana of that Mishnah is Rebbi Nechemyah, who maintains that one who pours leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash is liable for performing Avodah outside the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that just because Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that one is liable for pouring leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash does not mean that he also maintains that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed.
</p><p>
Rav Papa answers that Rebbi Nechemyah <i>does</i> require the clothing to be washed if this blood spilled on it. He cites a Beraisa, which he suggests was authored by Rebbi Nechemyah, which indeed says that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed.
</p><p>
The Gemara then quotes a contradictory Beraisa. The Gemara explains that this Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas. The Gemara seems to be defending the view of Rav Papa with this answer. Accordingly, is it correct to assume that the Gemara concludes in accordance with Rav Papa's statements?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Shalosh) says that this answer (that the Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas) is essentially part of the Gemara's question on Rav Papa. In other words, the Gemara remains with its original question, that just because Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that one is liable for pouring leftover blood outside the Beis ha'Mikdash does not mean that he also maintains that clothing onto which the leftover blood spilled must be washed. Accordingly, when the Gemara says that the second Beraisa refers to the last three Zerikos, it means that when the first Beraisa mentions 'the blood that is appropriate for the Yesod,' it refers to the last three Zerikos. This means that the Gemara's conclusion is that Rebbi Nechemyah maintains that the leftover blood does <i>not</i> require that the clothing be washed. Therefore, Rav Papa's proof from the Mishnah later (93b) is incorrect, but his ruling that blood from the last three Zerikos of a Korban Chatas require that the clothing be washed indeed is correct.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> presents, at great length, another way to understand the Gemara. He explains (and asserts that this is the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Ha Mani) that the Gemara concludes that Rav Papa's statements are entirely correct. His ruling is correct, and his proof from the Mishnah later (93b) is correct. Rebbi Nechemyah indeed maintains that the leftover blood requires clothing to be washed. (See Keren Orah at length.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHICH BLOOD MUST BE WASHED? <span class='indexentry'>[Chatas: blood: laundering]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	38b (R. Yochanan):</span> The (last) three Matanos (Zerikos) of a Chatas may not be done at night, but they may be done after the owner died. One who offers them outside (the Mikdash) is liable;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Papa):</span> In some respects, they are like the first Zerikah (which is Mechaper). E.g. if the blood splashed on a garment, it must be washed (in the Azarah).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (Rav Papa for himself - Mishnah):</span> If blood splashed from the Korban's neck onto a garment, it need not be washed. If blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod onto a garment, it need not be washed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Inference:</span> If blood Ra'uy for (that should have been put on) the Keren splashed onto a garment, it must be washed!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> If so, we should also infer that if blood Ra'uy for the Yesod splashed onto a garment, it must be washed, but this is wrong!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'Asher Yizah' excludes (from the obligation to wash a garment that absorbed) blood of a Korban after Zerikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	The Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah (this will be explained).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Nechemyah):</span> If one offered Shirayim outside, he is liable.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, just like one is liable for offering Eimurim outside. We cannot prove that he requires washing!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Indeed, we can prove this!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa #1):</span> The following apply to blood that must be put on the Yesod: it must be washed, intent (Chutz) takes effect on it, and one is liable for it outside.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	None of these apply to blood that is poured into the Amah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Conclusion:</span> Beraisa #1 must be R. Nechemyah, for he is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, and it says that Shirayim must be washed and intent takes effect on them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</span> The law of Shirayim and Eimurim is different (than blood that is Mechaper). Since they are not Me'akev Kaparah, intent does not take effect on them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (and rejection of the above answer):</span> Beraisa #1 refers to the last three Matanos of a Chatas. It means that *what remains of them* is put on the Yesod. (There is no source that R. Nechemyah obligates washing Shirayim.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Beraisa says that intent takes effect on the three Matanos. Rav Papa says that intent is not Mefagel!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The Beraisa discusses the last three Matanos of inner Chata'os.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This implies that one is exempt for offering the last three Matanos of outer Chata'os outside the Mikdash, and it need not be washed. If so, the Beraisa should have distinguished between inner and outer Chata'os, rather than between the Yesod and the Amah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The Beraisa is R. Nechemyah. He is Mechayav for Shirayim (even of outer Chata'os) outside. He taught that the Yesod and Amah differ in all three respects (washing, intent and outside). Shirayim of inner and outer Chata'os do not (one is liable for both of them outside).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Ravina):</span> The Mishnah said 'if blood splashed from the Keren or the Yesod...' This refers to blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood *Ra'uy (proper) for* the Yesod.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Tachlifa bar Gaza):</span> You should (be consistent and) say that it refers to blood Ra'uy for the Keren or for the Yesod!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Ravina):</span> The Mishnah would not need to teach both of them. If blood Ra'uy for the Keren need not be washed, all the more so blood Ra'uy for the Yesod need not!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	92a	(Mishnah):</span> The Parshah (about laundering Dam Chatas that splashed on a garment) discusses Chata'os that are eaten - 'b'Makom Kadosh Te'achel.' Even so, it applies also to those that are not eaten (inner Chata'os). 'Toras ha'Chatas' teaches that there is one law for all Chata'os.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	93a	(Mishnah):</span> If Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, it need not be laundered;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span>	If it splashed from the Keren or the Yesod, it need not be laundered;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span>	If it fell onto the floor and was gathered from the floor, it need not be laundered;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span>	The only blood that must be laundered is blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> ... Only blood that was received in a Keli must be laundered.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>24.</span>	The Mishnah gives the reason for the law. The reason we need not launder blood that was gathered from the floor is because only blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah must be laundered. 'Kosher for Haza'ah' excludes if less than the amount needed for Haza'ah was put into each of two Kelim. (Even if the blood was later joined, it is Pasul.)</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Sof 38b):</span> Rashi (DH Ha) says that 'the Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah' concludes the question. He obligates washing even Shirayim, but Chachamim exempt washing even blood of the three Matanos. The next question in the Gemara (indeed, R. Nechemyah is Mechayev for Shirayim outside, just like one is liable for offering Eimurim outside. We cannot prove that   he requires washing!) challenges the objection, and it is the first answer for Rav Papa). Others say that 'the Mishnah is like R. Nechemyah' answers the objection. R. Nechemyah obligates washing blood for which one is liable (for offering it) outside. Likewise, since one is liable for the last three Matanos outside, such blood must be washed.) The next question in the Gemara (indeed, R. Nechemyah...) challenges Rav Papa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:6):</span> If Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, or it splashed from the Keren of the Mizbe'ach, or it spilled on the floor and was gathered and splashed onto a garment, it need not be laundered. 'Asher Yizah mi'Damah' discusses only blood that was received in a Keli and is Kosher for Haza'ah, and there is enough for Haza'ah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> Rashi explains that on Daf 39a, we explained that the Mishnah discusses blood that splashed off the Keren, or blood *Ra'uy for* the Yesod. Once Shirayim were put on the Yesod, (if it splashed onto a garment) there is no need to launder it. This is why the Rambam omitted blood that splashed from the Yod. He explicitly says like Rashi (in Halachah 7).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> The Chidush is that what splashed from the Keren need not be laundered, even though the Matanos were not finished. The Rambam did not explain the law if the blood was received in a Keli and spilled on the ground and was gathered, if it must be laundered (if it splashed onto a garment). However, he taught that it depends on if it is Kosher for Haza'ah, and we hold that such blood is Kosher (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 1:25) (so it must be laundered). Therefore, we must say that the Rambam exempts blood that spilled *from the animal's neck* to the floor.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> 'Kosher for Haza'ah and there is enough for Haza'ah' suggests that these are two matters. However, we can say that the latter explains the former, i.e. that enough was received in the Keli for Haza'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (7):</span> If one did the four Matanos, and afterwards blood splashed from the bucket onto a garment from the Shirayim, it need not be laundered, even though the Shirayim were not yet thrown on the Yesod. The same applies to Chata'os that are burned.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Lechem Mishneh:</span> The Kesef Mishneh says that the Rambam learns from the Mishnah 92a. This is wrong. The Rambam already wrote above (Halachah 2) that it applies to Chata'os that are eaten and those that are burned. Rather, the Rambam needed to teach both here because one might have thought that Shirayim of och is not Me'akev, but Shirayim of inner Chata'os is Me'akev. He teaches that this is not so. Below (19:4) the Rambam says 'one who does Zerikah of Shirayim outside the Mikdash, even Shirayim of inner (Chata'os), is exempt.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (5:9):</span> Blood of a Chatas must be sprinkled with the finger - 'he will immerse his finger in the blood.' There must be enough blood on the Keli in order to immerse his finger. He may not soak up blood (from the wall of the Keli) with his finger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishneh l'Melech:</span> The Rambam connotes that it suffices if there is enough blood for Haza'ah in the Keli when he immerses his finger, even if less than this was received in each of two Kelim and one was poured into the other. The Gemara clearly requires that a Shi'ur be received in one Keli! Rashi explains so. Later, I noticed that the Rambam (8:4) says that Kabalah of less than the Shi'ur for Haza'ah is not Mekadesh the blood. Surely he does not mean that only this amount was received. This would be obvious, for the blood cannot be used for anything! Rather, he means that if less than this amount was received in each Keli. There, he taught about Kabalah. Here he teaches that also at the time of Haza'ah there must be a Shi'ur in the Keli. One might have thought that as long as Kabalah was proper, if the blood was divided into two Kelim and there is not a Shi'ur in either, it is fine. He teaches that this is not so.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE SUGGESTION THAT THE VERSE INCLUDES THE 'CHATAS' OF ROSH CHODESH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Torah states regarding the Par He'elem Davar, 'v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Far ha'Chatas' -- 'And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull of the Chatas' (Vayikra 4:20). The Beraisa (39a) states that the first word 'la'Par' includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, and the second 'l'Far' includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. The word 'ha'Chatas' includes a Chatas brought by the people for a communal transgression of the sin of idolatry. The verse teaches that all of their Zerikos must be done in order for the Korban to be valid.
</p><p>
The Beraisa (39a) adds that one might have thought that these words ('la'Par') refer to the Chata'os of the Regalim and of Roshei Chadashim. The Beraisa says that it is logical that they refer to Korbanos that are clearly brought for sins, and not to Korbanos that are not brought for sins.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Se'irei) asks why the Gemara entertains the possibility that the verse includes the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh. The Chatas of Rosh Chodesh is eaten, as indicated by the fact that Moshe Rabeinu was upset at the sons of Aharon for burning the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh (Vayikra 10:16). The Chata'os listed in the Beraisa, however, are not eaten but burned! (Since they are so different in such a significant way, it seems clear that the verse would not include them in place of other Chata'os which <i>are</i> burned.)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara's question is actually why Moshe Rabeinu did not derive from this verse that the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh has the same law in all respects as the Chata'os that are burned (such as the Par He'elem Davar).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> also suggests this answer, but he has difficulty with it. He suggests instead that the Gemara does not really mean to suggest that the verse includes the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh, but it means to suggest only that the verse includes the Chata'os of the Regalim. Since Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are always mentioned together, the Gemara mentions Rosh Chodesh here as well.
</p><p>
However, the Shitah Mekubetzes quotes <b>RABEINU NESANEL</b> who has a problem with the suggestion that the verse includes the Chata'os of the Regalim as well. Since the Chatas (Par) of Yom Kippur is included, and the verse 'Achas ba'Shanah' (Vayikra 16:34) teaches that a type of Korban like that of Yom Kippur is brought only once a year, how can the Gemara suggest that the Korbanos of the Regalim should also be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi?
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU NESANEL</b> therefore answers that the Gemara does not mean to suggest that the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh has all of the same laws as the Par He'elem Davar. Rather, it merely raises the possibility that all four Zerikos of its blood must be done or the Korban will be invalid. In this respect it is similar to the Par He'elem Davar, for which all of the Zerikos must be done or the Korban will be invalid.
</p><p>
However, the Shitah Mekubetzes asks that this answer is also difficult. If it is true that the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are not brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, then why does the Gemara say that the verse should include the other Chata'os because they are clearly brought for sins? It should give the more basic difference -- that the other Chata'os are Penimiyos, while the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim are brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon! It must be that the Gemara means to say that the Chata'os of Rosh Chodesh and the Regalim should also be Penimiyos.
</p><p>
(d) The Shitah Mekubetzes returns to his original answer (in (b) above). He answers Rabeinu Nesanel's challenge to his answer by saying that when the verse implies that a Korban like that of Yom Kippur is brought only once a year, it does not exclude other Korbanos from being brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. It means only that this Korban of Yom Kippur serves for only one type of atonement, and not for two types of atonement. This explanation of 'Achas ba'Shanah' is indeed mentioned by the Gemara in Shevuos (10a-b). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR 'SEMICHAH' AND 'SHIRAYIM' FOR THE PAR YOM HA'KIPURIM</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara explains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the words 'Ken Ye'aseh' (Vayikra 4:20) teach that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim requires Semichah and Shefichas Shirayim, like the Par He'elem Davar. The Gemara asks why the words 'Ken Ye'aseh' are needed to teach this, when it can be learned from 'l'Far' (ibid.), which includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim in the laws of Par He'elem Davar (39b). The Gemara answers that one might have thought that this inclusion applies only to a part of the Avodah on which the validity of the Korban to depends, but to Semichah and Shefichas Shirayim. This is why the words 'Ken Ye'aseh' are necessary.
</p><p>
What is the basis of the Gemara's logic? Why should 'l'Far' include only an Avodah on which the validity of the Korban depends?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Salka) writes that since the verse says, 'v'Chiper,' it is clear that the verse refers only to parts of the Avodah on which the atonement depends.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Semichah) notes that this Tana learns from the inclusion of the Par Yom ha'Kipurim that the Yoseres and Kelayos (diaphragm and kidneys) are burned on the Mizbe'ach, even though this Avodah is not absolutely necessary for the Korban to be valid.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the reason why Semichah and Shefichas Shirayim should not be included in the word 'l'Far' is that the word 'v'Asah' in this verse implies an important Avodah. Burning the limbs on the Mizbe'ach is considered an important Avodah, while Semichah and Shefichas Shirayim are not considered important enough to be included in the verse.
</p><p>
Tosfos supports the fact that Shefichas Shirayim is not considered an important Avodah from the Gemara later (111a). The Gemara there states that while the burning of the limbs is considered part of the beginning of a Korban's Avodah, Shefichas Shirayim is considered part of the end of a Korban's Avodah.
</p><p>
The <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> explains that Tosfos does not learn like Rashi because he understands that the word 'v'Chiper' refers to the Korban itself, while 'v'Asah' refers to the Avodos of the Korban. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> IMMERSING THE FINGER IN DAM CHATAS <span class='indexentry'>[Chatas: Zerikah: Tevilah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	14a - Question:</span> Obviously, dipping the finger does not make Pigul in outer Chata'os. The Torah does not say to dip the finger!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Since it says 'v'Lakach', and the Kohen must dip his finger, one might have thought that it is as if it says 'v'Taval'. The Torah did not write 'v'Taval', to teach that this is not an important Avodah, so it does not make Pigul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	40a (Rav Papa):</span> 'La'Par' teaches that the laws learned from 'ba'Dam' and 'v'Taval' apply to the Par of Yom Kipur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	'Ba'Dam' teaches that he must receive enough blood in the Keli to dip his finger in it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	'V'Taval' teaches that he must dip his finger into the blood. He may not scrape blood from the wall of the bucket onto his finger.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	Both verses are needed. Had the Torah said only v'Taval, one might have thought that even if he did not initially receive enough blood in the Keli, it is Kosher. Had it said only ba'Dam, one might have thought that he may scrape blood onto his finger.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	53a (Beraisa):</span> He immerses his right index finger in the blood in the bucket, and uses his thumb and pinky to constrict the blood so all will go on the edge, until all the blood from his finger is finished;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	He does the same on every Keren.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	93b	(Beraisa):</span> 'Min ha'Dam' - from the blood we are discussing.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> This excludes blood left on his finger after every Haza'ah;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	This supports R. Elazar, who says that blood left on his finger is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> After finishing Haza'ah (of blood of the Parah Adumah), the Kohen would wipe his hand on the Parah itself.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> After completing the Haza'os, he would wipe his *hand*. After each Haza'ah, he would wipe his *finger*.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Between Haza'os, what would he wipe his finger on? (He could not wipe it on the Parah, lest hairs stick to his finger, which would disqualify future Haza'os!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Abaye):</span> He would wipe his hand on the edge of the bucket (of blood). The buckets are called '*Kefori* Zahav' (the root of this word also connotes cleaning).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 21a (Rav Chisda):</span> Regarding outer Chata'os, it says 'v'Lakach... v'Nasan.' Congealed blood can be taken and put (on the Keren), so it is still considered blood. It says about inner Chata'os 'v'Toval... v'Hizah.' One cannot immerse (a finger) in or sprinkle congealed blood, so it is not considered blood.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:8):</span> One must immerse his finger (in blood in the bucket) before putting on each Keren. When he finishes putting blood on a Keren, he cleans his finger on the brim of the bucket, and then immerses it again, for leftover blood from a Keren is Pasul to put on another Keren.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Malbim (on Vayikra 4:7, 223):</span> When the Torah repeats 'v'Hizah *Min ha'Dam*', this teaches that he must immerse his finger before each Haza'ah. There was no need for the verse to say 'v'Nasan ha'Kohen *Min ha'Dam*.' Also, this is extra to teach that he must immerse his finger before each Haza'ah, and that blood left on the finger is Pasul. However, if so what is the Rambam's source that the Kohen must immerse his finger for every Matanah of outer Chata'os? There, it does not say 'Min ha'Dam'!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Acharonah (Nega'im 14:1 DH Taval):</span> Our Mishnah does not mention immersing before each Haza'ah on a Metzora. Mishnah 10 and Parah 3:9 mention immersing before each Haza'ah (of oil, and blood towards the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim). There, we learn from verses. Also, perhaps leftover blood is Pasul only for Haza'ah Lifnei Hash-m. However, also Yoma does not mention Tevilah before each inner Haza'ah of Yom Kipur. The Rambam says that there is Tevilah before each Haza'ah of Par Helam Davar and presumably the same applies to inner Chata'os of Yom Kipur. What is the Rambam's source for outer Chata'os? Meforshim say that he learns from inner Chata'os, but this is difficult. It is better to say that it is because it is called Chatas. However, Rashi (Shemos 12:22, 24:6) connotes that this applies to all Haza'os without any distinction.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (5:9):</span> Blood of a Chatas must be sprinkled with the finger - 'he will immerse his finger in the blood.' We require enough blood on the Keli in order to immerse his finger, not that he soaks up blood (from the wall of the Keli) with his finger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> Rashi explains that one must immerse his finger in the blood. He may not absorb blood from the bottom or walls of the bucket. He must initially receive enough blood in the Keli to immerse his finger. He may not receive less than this amount in each of two Kelim and pour one into the other. The Rambam connotes that both of these are one matter. There must be a Shi'ur for Tevilah in the Keli in order that he will not need to absorb blood from the bucket. However, the Gemara expounded 'v'Taval' to teach that he may not absorb, and 'b'Dam' to obligate a Shi'ur for Tevilah, and explained why both of these are needed! We must say that the Rambam's words 'we require' refer also to the last clause 'that he not soak up blood with his finger.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chak Nasan (93b DH v'Taval):</span> Why didn't the Rambam cite the Beraisa 'we require enough blood for Haza'ah from the beginning?' It is because he already taught this above. Here, he teaches only that he may not soak up blood with his finger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishneh l'Melech:</span> The Rambam connotes that it suffices if there is enough blood for Haza'ah in the Keli when he immerses his finger, even if less than this was received in each of two Kelim, and one was poured into the other. The Gemara clearly requires receiving a Shi'ur in one Keli! Rashi explains so. The Rambam (4:8) says that Kabalah of less than Shi'ur Haza'ah is not Mekadesh the blood. He need not teach about when only this amount was received. This is obvious, for the blood cannot be used for anything! Rather, he means that a Shi'ur was received in Kelim, and no one Keli received a Shi'ur. There, he taught about Kabalah. Here he teaches that also at the time of Haza'ah there must be a Shi'ur in the Keli. One might have thought that if he received a Shi'ur in one Keli, if the blood was divided into two Kelim and there is not a Shi'ur in either, it is fine. This answers the Kesef Mishneh's question. 'B'Dam' teaches that there must be a Shi'ur for Tevilah *at the time of Kabalah*. Here he teaches that there must be a Shi'ur in the Keli at the time of *Haza'ah*. There is no verse for this. The Rambam derives this from the Isur to absorb. If there is no Shi'ur, he will absorb!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ohr Some'ach:</span> Regarding inner Chata'os, Rashi and Tosfos (Menachos 7b DH b'Dam and v'Im) explain that one must receive enough for all seven Haza'os in one Keli (for all are Me'akev). Surely they agree that for outer Chata'os, for which only one Haza'ah is Me'akev, it suffices to receive enough for one Haza'ah. It is no worse than if the blood spilled after one Matanah. In every case, Kabalah must be the amount needed for the Haza'os that are Me'akev.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishneh l'Melech:</span> 'V'Taval' is written regarding inner Chata'os. Regarding outer Chata'os that are eaten, it says 'v'Lakach ha'Kohen mi'Damah b'Etzba'o.' Even so, Tevilah is required, for 'v'Lakach' refers to his finger. Where it says v'Taval, intent disqualifies at the time he immerses his finger. Where it says v'Lakach, even though Tevilah is required, intent does not disqualify at the time of Tevilah (Zevachim 14a).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kisvei ha'Griz 40a DH Lo (p. 93):</span> Since we require Tevilah even for outer Chata'os, congealed blood should be Pasul. However, Menachos 21a disqualifies it for inner Chata'os for this reason, but says that it is Kosher for outer Chata'os, about which it says 'v'Lakach', and one can take the blood and put it on the Keren! Why is this different than absorbing blood on the finger, which is Pasul? R. Chayim (ha'Levi) disqualifies congealed blood even for outer Chata'os. However, for outer Chata'os, since it says v'Lakach, the blood itself is not Pasul. The problem is that one cannot do the act of Tevilah. For inner Chata'os, the blood itself is Pasul, for the Torah requires blood in which one can immerse a finger. In Menachos the Gemara discusses liability for eating blood. Kares is only for blood Kosher for Zerikah, even if Zerikah cannot be done for another reason, e.g. one cannot immerse the finger in congealed blood of an outer Chatas.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kisvei ha'Griz (ibid., p. 94):</span> The Ra'avad explains that v'Taval and b'Dam both teach about the time of Tevilah. At the time of Tevilah the Keli must contain enough blood for all the (seven) Haza'os (for inner Chata'os). However, this is difficult, for on 93b we learn that there must be a Shi'ur at the time of Kabalah (like the Rambam expounds)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 3:6):</span> Tevilah is needed for each of the 43 Matanos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Emek ha'Netziv (on Sifri Chukas 1 (b'Sof), p.148):</span> The Sifri learns from 'mi'Damah Sheva Pe'amim' Tevilah for each Haza'ah. In Zevachim, 'mi'Dam' disqualifies blood left on the finger. It follows that a new Haza'ah is needed for each. Why does Perush ha'Mishnayos learn from 'v'Taval'? This is like Toras Kohanim. If we only had the Drashah about Shirayim, one might have thought that this is when there is not enough left on the finger for Haza'ah, but when enough remains, he need not immerse again. Regarding the oil put on a Metzora, and the Haza'os of Par Yom Kipur, there is no Drashah to disqualify the Shirayim, so he need not clean the finger in between. Regarding Tevilah for each Haza'ah, we learn all Haza'os of blood from each other through a Giluy Milsa (the Torah revealed once, and we learn that all are the same).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Meromei Sadeh (Zevachim 40a Tosfos DH Lo):</span> We learn all blood one from another. We need other verses for the Matanos of Par and Se'ir Yom Kipur, for Matanos in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim are different. Rashi (41a DH Makom) explicitly says that we do not learn these Haza'os from the others. The Rambam did not say that one must clean the finger before Tevilos for Haza'as Par Yom Kipur, nor that one must immerse and not absorb, like he wrote in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos. For Yom Kipur we learn only what is written, i.e. v'Lakach. He must take blood (on his finger) for each Haza'ah. This is why we needed to learn about Haza'os on the Paroches and inner Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY COMPARE 'PAR YOM HA'KIPURIM' TO 'PAR KOHEN MOSHIACH?'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Torah states regarding the Par He'elem Davar, 'v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Far ha'Chatas' -- 'And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull of the Chatas' (Vayikra 4:20). The Beraisa (39a) states that the first word 'la'Par' includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, and the second 'l'Far' includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. The word 'ha'Chatas' includes a Chatas brought by the people for a communal transgression of the sin of idolatry. The verse teaches that all of their Zerikos must be done in order for the Korban to be valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara here teaches that three laws are derived from the inclusion of the Par Yom ha'Kipurim in the verse: the laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah.' <b>RASHI</b> (40a, DH Ela l'Es) explains that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, which is also included in the verse of Par He'elem Davar, as mentioned above. With regard to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach the verse says, 'And he will dip his finger in the blood.' This verse is the source for the three laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' (as the Gemara here explains at length). The comparison teaches that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim has the same three laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assume that the Par Yom ha'Kipurim should be compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach? The fact that both are included in the verse of the Par He'elem Davar does not necessitate that their laws be shared.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (40a, DH Ela l'Es) answers this question by clarifying the Gemara's derivations from the verse. Once the Gemara teaches that the word 'la'Par' in the verse includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim, and the second 'l'Far' includes the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, it is necessary to go back and read the verse accordingly. Besides including these Korbanos in the laws of Par He'elem Davar, the verse now reads that whatever is done to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach should be done to the Par Yom ha'Kipurim. Hence, the Par Yom ha'Kipurim is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (40a, DH Lo Nitzrechah Ela l'Es) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. The Gemara also derives these laws for the communal Chatas brought for the sin of idolatry. How does Rashi know that the Chatas for idolatry is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach? <b>RABEINU TAM</b> concludes that while some of the laws of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach are considered as though they are stated with regard to the Par He'elem Davar as well (and it is logical to compare the Chatas of idolatry to the Par He'elem Davar, based on the teaching of the Gemara earlier on 39b), how are the other laws, such as 'b'Dam v'Tevilah,' derived from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach? There is no reason to compare the Chatas of idolatry to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach! (See <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b>, who defends the explanation of Rashi.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explains that the laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' in fact are stated with regard to the Par He'elem Davar as well, in the verse, 'And he will dip his finger from the blood' (Vayikra 4:17). Accordingly, the comparison is actually from the Par Yom ha'Kipurim to the Par He'elem Davar (based on the teaching on 39b). The Gemara merely quotes the similar verse which is stated with regard to the Kohen Mashi'ach (from Vayikra 4:6) because this is the first similar verse stated in the Parshah of these types of Korbanos. However, the fact that a number of Korbanos are included in the verse of Par He'elem Davar is not a reason to compare those included Korbanos to each other. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'KAL VA'CHOMER' OF REBBI YISHMAEL</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara (40b) quotes an apparently vague Kal va'Chomer in the name of Rebbi Yishmael: If, where two Korbanos are not equated with each other, their actions are equated with each other, then certainly where two Korbanos are equated with each other, their actions are equated with each other.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains the Kal va'Chomer: If the Avodah of the Par He'elem Davar and the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim is the same, even though these Korbanos are not brought from the same type of animal, then certainly two similar Korbanos, such as the Par Yom ha'Kipurim and the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, or the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim and the Se'ir Avodah Zarah, should have the same Avodah. The Gemara compares the Par Yom ha'Kipurim to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and applies the laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' (as explained on 40b) to the Par Yom ha'Kipurim. It also concludes that the laws of the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim are learned from the Se'ir Avodah Zarah, but it does not state what laws are derived.
</p><p>
How exactly does this Kal va'Chomer function?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (40b-41a) understands that the Gemara's intention is to derive the laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' for the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim in the follow manner. If the Avodah is the same for the Par He'elem Davar and Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim despite the fact that they are brought from different types of animals, then certainly the laws of a Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim may be derived from a Korban which is brought from a similar type of animal, namely the Se'ir Avodah Zarah.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ</b> has great difficulty with this explanation. The typical Kal va'Chomer in the Gemara states that if a certain requirement exists in a category which is not strict, then certainly that requirement should exist in a category which <i>is</i> strict. Here, however, the Kal va'Chomer does not work this way. This Kal va'Chomer essentially states that since two Korbanos which are brought from different animals have the same laws, the laws of one Korban should be derived from another Korban which is brought from the same type of animal, even though those laws are not explicitly stated with regard to the second Korban. In other words, if the laws of two dissimilar Korbanos are the same, then certainly the laws which are not stated explicitly for one Korban should be able to be derived from another, similar Korban. However, in the first half of this 'Kal va'Chomer,' no laws are being derived from one Korban to the other. Rather, we merely find that their laws are the same! How, then, can that be a logical basis to derive (in the second half of this 'Kal va'Chomer') laws from one Korban to another?
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara (Bava Kama 25a and elsewhere) records a dispute about whether a Kal va'Chomer may be applied to teach a more stringent Halachah, or whether it may be used to teach only the exact status as the source Halachah. This is known as 'Dayo la'Ba Min ha'Din Liheyos ka'Nidon.' According to the opinion that maintains 'Dayo,' the difficulty with Rebbi Yishmael's Kal va'Chomer is strengthened. Even according to the opinion that does not maintain 'Dayo,' it remains difficult to understand what is being derived through this Kal va'Chomer from the two Korbanos of Par He'elem Davar and the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim.
</p><p>
(b) In light of his questions on Rashi's explanation, Rav Elazar Moshe ha'Levi understands the Gemara differently. He explains that in fact there is no Kal va'Chomer through which the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim is derived from the Se'ir Avodah Zarah. Rather, the laws of the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim are derived through a <i>Hekesh</i> which compares the two Korbanos. The Torah says 'ha'Chatas' with regard to both Korbanos, which teaches that these Korbanos are brought due to a sin, and gives grounds to compare their laws to each other.
</p><p>
When the Gemara says that the laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' for the Par Yom ha'Kipurim are derived from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim from the Se'ir Avodah Zarah, 'through a Kal va'Chomer,' it means that after a Hekesh compares the two Se'irim, the laws of the Par Yom ha'Kipurim can be derived through a Kal va'Chomer. Just as the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim and Par He'elem Davar have the same laws of 'Es b'Dam v'Tevilah' even though they are different animals, the Par Yom ha'Kipurim can be derived from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach since they are the same type of animal.
</p><p>
This resolves the question that in the Kal va'Chomer, in the first set of Korbanos, the laws for both Korbanos are taught explicitly, while they are not taught explicitly in the second set of Korbanos. According to Rav Elazar Moshe ha'Levi Horowitz, this is not the case. It is only through a Hekesh that the laws of the Se'ir Yom ha'Kipurim are derived. Therefore, the laws of the Par Yom ha'Kipurim should be derived through a Hekesh from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CAN PEOPLE AFFECT THE HEAVENLY LEGIONS? <span class='indexentry'>[Pamalya Shel Ma'alah: man]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question:</span> Regarding Par Mashu'ach it says 'Paroches ha'Kodesh.' Regarding Par Helam Davar it is called only 'Paroches'. What is the reason?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> A parable explains this. A province rebelled against the king. If the minority rebelled, his Famalya (cabinet of confidants) endures. If the majority rebelled, it does not endures.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sanhedrin 67b (R. Yochanan):</span> Kishuf (witchcraft) is called Keshafim, an acronym for MaCHchiSHim FaMalya (Shel Ma'alah, the Heavenly legions).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Chanina):</span> 'Ein Od Milvado (other than Hash-m)' - even Kishuf (has no power).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	A woman was trying to weigh the dirt under R. Chanina's feet (for the sake of Kishuf). He was not concerned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Yochanan taught that it is Machchish Famalya Shel Ma'alah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> R. Chanina was different. Because his merit was so great, it could not affect him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Eibo bar Nigri):</span> Wherever it says 'b'Lateihem', this refers to actions done through Shedim. 'B'Lahateihem' refers to Kishuf - 'v'Es Lahat Cherev ha'Mishapeches' (it moved by itself).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Elazar):</span> 'Va'Yomru ha'Chartumim ...Etzba Elokim Hi' - Paro's Mechashfim recognized that the lice did not come through Shedim, for Shedim cannot create anything smaller than a barley seed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Papa):</span> They cannot create anything at all! Rather, they can *gather*things bigger than a barley seed, but not smaller.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Daf 99b (R. Alexandri):</span> One who learns Torah Lishmah creates Shalom above and below - 'Oh Yachazik b'Ma'uzi Ya'aseh Shalom Li Shalom Ya'aseh Li.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 7b (R. Chanina):</span> One does not stub his finger, unless this was decreed above - 'the steps of man are prepared by Hash-m'; 'a man does not understand his way'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 81b:</span> Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna were going in a boat. A woman wanted to sit near them; they refused. She said something that made the boat stop. They said something that allowed it to move.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	The woman:</span> I cannot overcome you, for you do not kill lice on your clothing...</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Daf 89a (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</span> When Moshe ascended to receive the Torah, Hash-m said 'you should help Me!'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Moshe:</span> 'V'Atah Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m ka'Asher Dibarta.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Daf 119b (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</span> If one answers 'Amen Yehei Shmei Raba' with all his Ko'ach (concentration), harsh decrees against him are torn up.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Medrash Sechel Tov (Shemos 7:11):</span> Kishuf contradicts the Heavenly legions. It appears to do signs and wonders like of Hash-m. Heaven forbid to believe that it can do an actual act! They merely do illusions to make it appear this way, but really it is not, like it says 'va'Yomru ha'Chartumim ...Etzba Elokim Hi.'</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (41b DH Famalia):</span> A king's Famalya is his company that agrees with him. If the majority soured, his Famalya does not endure. He partially leaves their company, and is not as informal with them as before. Likewise, if most of Yisrael sinned, it is as if there is no Kedushah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tzitz Eliezer (14:17, b'Sof):</span> The Yerushalmi (Ta'anis 2:1) says that when the Tzibur sins, the Gedulah (greatness) does not persist. Surely there is no less Kedushah, just it is not in its place. The place is not proper to contain Him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Moreh Nevuchim (1:25):</span> The idea of being Shochen in a place is consistently dwelling there. We apply this word to Hash-m, i.e. His Shechinah (created light) or Hashgachah is consistently in a place.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Noda bi'Yehudah (2 OC 107):</span> The light He created and His Hashgachah are the same. His Hashgachah is not tangible. The light was Ne'etzal (copied) from it. We call the Hashgachah 'Shechinah'. When Yisrael do His will, the primary Hashgachah is in Yisrael, and He influences all good upon them. Because there is much good, it reaches also other places. Then we say that the Shechinah dwells in Yisrael.When Yisrael sins too much, they are exiled from their land to Nochri lands. All influence descends there, and Yisrael receive their bare needs from it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Shabbos 81b DH Amrei):</span> Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna said a Tahor name (to make the boat move again).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sefas Emes (Shabbos 81b):</span> This connotes that one may not save himself through Kishuf. Perhaps here is different, for they were able to save themselves by letting her enter. Why did she say 'I cannot overcome you'? Her Kishuf worked! Perhaps where Kishuf works, a Name cannot be Mevatel it - 'Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah.' Rashi in Chulin (105b DH Amrei) says that they saved themselves through Kishuf, and some say that they saved themselves through a Name.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Chulin 7b DH Keshafim):</span> Kishuf contradicts the Heavenly legions. The legions did not decree that Ploni will die, and he dies through Kishuf.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashbam (Shmos 32:4):</span> Were Yisrael lunatics to believe that the Egel took them out of Mitzrayim?! All idolaters know that Hash-m created the world. They err as follows. Idols have a Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah, just like Nevi'im have Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. The Egel spoke with Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah. They thought that it spoke with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh from above, and this Ru'ach ha'Kodesh would lead them. Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah of kinds of Kishuf were given to test Yisrael. Ov and Yid'oni were given power to be Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah and tell the future, to test if Yisrael will be pure with Hash-m and not believe Nevi'im of Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah - 'Hash-m Elokeichem tests you, to know if you love Hash-m.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ramban (Shmos 7:11, Vayikra 17:7):</span> Lahateihem is Kishuf done through damaging angels, i.e. angels of fire. Perhaps this name is given to angels that dwell in the air on the spheres (that turn the celestial bodies). They are appointed over the other nations. B'Lateihem are Shedim. They have bodies from auir that is not felt. Learned witches know how to impose oaths on them. They can tell what will happen in the near future, but they have no power, so they are called 'Lo Eloha.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sefer ha'Chinuch (28):</span> Hash-m created everything with a nature to do beneficial things in the world. Everything has a power above it forcing it to do its action, e.g. every grass has an angel above it telling it to grow. Hash-m commanded that we not mix seeds or animals to make a new species and Mevatel the species it came from. Chachamim say that Keshafim Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah, i.e. it temporarily overpowers the power above it. It does not say that it overpowers the *decree* above, for Hash-m decreed that this action come from them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Bechaye (Shmos 22:17):</span> Kishuf is connecting separate things. When lower things are connected, the forces above join, and a wondrous strange act results.  The Isur of Kil'ayim resembles this. Joining the different powers damages greatly. The witches of Mitzrayim did wonders through nature.  Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah is when a man below combines things opposite to the powers decreed in the motions of the celestial spheres. Man should let the world conduct normally like the simple nature that Hash-m created. This is like the Ramban. R. Chananel explains that it *appears* as if they are Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah. Really, they cannot change Hashem's decree, like R. Chanina said. The Gemara said that he is different due to his merits, but we do not rely on this answer. Even though Kishuf has no power, a witch is Chayav Misah for transgressing Hashem's decree. People are Chayav Misah even for violating the decree of a mortal king!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (1:418):</span> Keshafim Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah, i.e. cause a lack of trust in Hash-m. Some of its powers are true, and they strengthen belief. However, others are mixed with Sheker, and weaken belief. The Torah tries to obliterate their memory, for they make people stray from Avodas Hash-m and acquiring true perfection and the basis of belief.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rivash (92):</span> 'Machchishim' means contradicting. They change nature that Shamayim arranged, e.g. to make a rod into a snake, like Paro's witches did. They are done through angels of fire. The Gemara brings episodes in which Kishuf changed things. Shedim can enter people, or bring things quickly from far away, unless they are too small.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Drush 4 DH uv'Zeh):</span> Hash-m created the world in order that there will be a constant influence of Tov, and an influence of evil only when He wants, for a need. Engaging in Kishuf prepares the lower beings to receive evil influence, the opposite of what Famalya Shel Ma'alah arranged.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Abarvenel (Shmos 7:8):</span> The witches of Mitzrayim used Shedim to make the appearance of snakes, blood and frogs, but they did not really create them. They are illusions. This is why they could not remove them. Damaging angels can harm; they cannot save.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM AND ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (OC 47:2):</span> If Yisrael engage in Torah in order that their limbs and sinews cling to Torah, they are the Merkavah. They would be the Heichal, and the Shechinah would dwell inside them. The entire land would illuminate from His glory. This would connect the Heavenly legions with the legions below, and the Mishkan would be one. In Bayis Rishon, they engaged in Torah for the sake of physical needs for their benefit, to know laws for the sake of business and to demonstrate their Chachmah. This caused the Shechinah to leave the land and go above. The land was left physical, without Kedushah. This caused the Churban.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shlah (Balak Torah Ohr 2,14):</span>  Kesem is bringing down influence from the stars. Nachash is Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah. They do not harm Yisrael when Yisrael do Hashem's will, for Ein Mazel l'Yisrael - 'Lo Nachash b'Yakov v'Lo Kesem b'Yisrael.' If one has great merits, even Kishuf cannot harm him. Bilam wanted to curse Yisrael at the time of Hashem's anger, for then these can harm Yisrael. At the end, he said 'I cannot do Katanah (curse through Nichush) or Gedolah (a curse that Hash-m Himself agrees to).'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharsha (Shabbos 89a DH v'Amar and 119b DH b'Chol):</span> Tzadikim, through their words and Tefilos, add strength to Famalya Shel Ma'alah. If one answers 'Amen Yehei Shmei Raba', Hash-m uses all *His* Ko'ach to tear harsh decrees against the person.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharsha (Sanhedrin 99b DH Kol):</span> The Famalya Shel Ma'alah naturally has Shalom. Sin causes prosection. Some members above advocate for man, and others prosecute. One who learns Torah Lishmah creates Shalom above. When Hash-m wanted to create man, Shalom said that he should not be created. Through learning Torah, there is Shalom below.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Toras Chayim (99b):</span> Famalya Shel Ma'alah is the Heavenly legions and angels above, including snow, hail and fire. They do not harm the other, due to the great Shalom between them. They do not change their functions or intrude on others' realms. There is also Shalom among similar legions below, through engaging in Torah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharal (Be'er ha'Golah, Be'er Sheni 4):</span> Keshafim is what is Machchishim Famalya Shel Ma'alah. Something that is not an action, but merely telling or showing something does not depart from the way of the world. They would impose oaths (on Shedim) to force them to tell, just like we impose oaths on witnesses to force them to testify. This is not forbidden!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (Chulin 7b DH Keshafim):</span> The Maharal says that those who impose oaths through Sefer Yetzirah are not Machchish Famalya Shel Ma'alah, for the world was created through combinations of the letters, and they know how to join the letters to transform matters, they use the same tools that Hash-m did. This is no contradiction to the basis of nature. Witches who use powers of Tum'ah do contradict. Still, this requires investigation.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Keli Yakar (Devarim 32:1):</span> If not for Torah, man would be like an animal, without a portion from above. Therefore, one who engages in Torah makes Shalom between the upper and lower legions, i.e. there is an intermediary to unite them, so they do not oppose each other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (OC 5:1):</span> We say 'Baruch' in Berachos. Hash-m does not need our Berachos, Heaven forbid! Rather, it is like light that is reflected. (We bless Him, and) He puts Berachah on us. We must arouse this - 'Tenu Oz Leilokim.' All matters depend on our deeds. Therefore, we must add strength to Famalya Shel Ma'alah, and then Berachah descends to us - 'Rochev Shamayim b'Ezrecha.'</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AN APPARENTLY EXTRA 'HEKESH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara (41a) derives the requirement to burn the Yoseres ha'Kaved (diaphragm of the liver) and Shtei ha'Kelayos (two kidneys) of the Se'ir Avodah Zarah on the Mizbe'ach from the laws of the Par He'elem Davar, as implied by the verse, 'Chatasam... Al Shigegasam' -- 'their sins... for their accidents' (Bamidbar 15:25).
</p><p>
The Gemara (41a-b, see also <b>RASHI</b> DH Amar Rav Papa) explains that although a verse already compares the Se'ir Avodah Zarah with the Par He'elem Davar with regard to other laws, this second Hekesh is still needed to teach the law of the Yoseres and the Kelayos. This law, that the Yoseres and Kelayos must be burned on the Mizbe'ach, is not stated explicitly even for the Par He'elem Davar. Rather, this requirement for the Par He'elem Davar is derived from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. Accordingly, one might have thought that the Par He'elem Davar may not be used as a source to teach this requirement for the Se'ir Avodah Zarah. Hence, a second Hekesh of 'Chatasam... Al Shigegasam' is needed.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (41b, DH Aval) and the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> are perplexed by the Gemara's answer. The Gemara (41a) says explicitly that when the verse states, 'v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Far' regarding the Par He'elem Davar, the second word 'l'Far' refers to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach. Rav Papa explains that this Hekesh enables the Par He'elem Davar to be the source that teaches that the Yoseres and Kelayos of the Se'ir Avodah Zarah are burned on the Mizbe'ach, since 'this Hekesh makes it as though the law is explicitly stated [for the Par He'elem Davar].' How, then, can the Gemara here say that 'Chatasam... Al Shigegasam' is necessary to make it as though it is explicitly stated? There is already a Hekesh that serves this purpose!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that perhaps the Hekesh of 'Chatasam... Al Shigegasam' is the Gemara's source that the first word 'la'Par' refers to the Par He'elem Davar, and the second 'l'Far' refers to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> suggests that there are three levels of non-explicit law in the Torah. There is a law derived from another topic in a manner which does <i>not</i> make it as though the Torah states the law explicitly with regard to this topic. This derivation is not clear and obvious. On another level, a law derived from another topic <i>is</i> considered as though it is written explicitly in the Torah, but one still would not think to teach this law through a Hekesh to another topic, since it is not actually written. The third level is a law derived from another topic which is considered as though it is written explicitly in the Torah, and it <i>may</i> be taught through a Hekesh to another topic. In the case of the Gemara here, only because the verse says, 'v'Asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah l'Far ha'Chatas' (implying that everything done to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach must be done to the Par He'elem Davar), are all aspects of the service of the two Korbanos the same. This is why both Hekeshim are needed.
</p><p>
(The Shitah Mekubetzes later retracts this answer and concludes with the answer of Tosfos.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'PIGUL' OF A 'CHATZI MATIR'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara earlier (41b) cites the Mishnah in Menachos (16a) in which Rebbi Meir rules that if the Kohen has in mind a thought of Pigul at the time that he offers the Kometz and Levonah, the offering is considered Pigul. According to one explanation in the Gemara, Rebbi Meir is teaching that Pigul can be made with a partial Matir -- 'Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir.' This means that if there are two different Avodos that, together, permit a Korban to be eaten or offered on the Mizbe'ach, it is not necessary to have a thought of Pigul for both of them; the Pigul takes effect even if it is thought for only one of them. The Gemara cites a Beraisa which teaches that according to Rebbi Meir, if the Kohen Gadol has a thought of Pigul while he performs the Zerikas ha'Dam of the Par and Se'ir on Yom Kippur, the Korban becomes Pigul whether he had the Pigul thought during the first set of Zerikos, during the second set, or during the third set, and eating the meat of the Korban is punishable with Kares. Rebbi Meir is consistent with his opinion with regard to the Kometz and Levonah. All of the Zerikos that are done with the blood are a single Matir. Rebbi Meir maintains that the Kohen Gadol can cause the Zerikos to become Pigul even if he thinks a thought of Pigul during one of the sets of Zerikos, because he maintains 'Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir.'
</p><p>
The Gemara questions the opinion of Rebbi Meir. How can a thought of Pigul during the Zerikos in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim create an Isur of Pigul on the Korban? There is a rule that Pigul is created only when all of the Avodos of the Korban are done properly. The Gemara asks that if the Zerikos in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim were done with a thought of Pigul but the other Zerikos were not, then a situation has been created in which the Zerikos, as a whole, were not done properly, since half were done with a thought of Pigul and half were done without a thought of Pigul. Since the Zerikos were not done properly, the Korban should not become Pigul and there should be no Chiyuv of Kares!
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ki Hadar) explains that if all of the Zerikos had been done with Pigul, then even though the Zerikos were not done properly (since they were done with a thought of Pigul), with regard to the Isur Kares of Pigul it is considered as if the Korban was offered properly, because this is the only way that the Isur of Pigul could ever take effect. If, however, half of the Avodah of Zerikah was done properly and half was done with a thought of Pigul, the Avodah should be considered to have been done improperly (with regard to Pigul taking effect), since it was neither a fully valid Avodah nor a fully invalid (Pigul) Avodah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ki) asks a number of questions on this Gemara.
</p><p>
First, why does the Gemara ask this question only on the case of Chatzi Matir with regard to the Zerikos done in the Heichal or in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim? The Gemara's question should apply to every single case of Pigul that takes effect on a Chatzi Matir, since only half of the Matir was done with a thought of Pigul and half was done without a thought of Pigul! It is clear from the Gemara that the question applies only to the Zerikos, and not to a normal Chatzi Matir, since the Gemara waits to cite the Beraisa that discusses the Zerikos before it asks this question. If the question applies to every case of Chatzi Matir, then the question should be raised either at the beginning of the Sugya, or at the end (before the next Mishnah), rather than being associated with the Beraisa that discusses the Zerikos. This is also clear from the words of Rashi (DH Amar Mar). Why is the same question not applicable in every case of Chatzi Matir? (See <b>SEFAS EMES</b>.)
</p><p>
Second, the Gemara asks that if the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim were Pasul, then the remaining Haza'os in the Heichal should not be considered to have been done properly, since part of the Avodah was done with a thought of Pigul. Why is the Gemara bothered only by the Haza'os of the Heichal being Pasul? Since Rebbi Meir maintains that 'Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir,' even if the Kohen Gadol had a thought of Pigul at the time of the first Zerikah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, it should disqualify all of the subsequent Zerikos in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and in the Heichal. The Gemara should ask that after the first Zerikah of Pigul, all of the other Zerikos -- even those in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim -- are not considered to have been done properly. Why, then, does the Gemara ask only that the Haza'os in the Heichal were not done properly?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that the Gemara assumes that if the Kohen has a thought of Pigul during part of a Matir, that does not automatically invalidate the other part of the Matir to make it considered an improperly-performed Avodah. The logic for this is straightforward; just as when the Shechitah was done with a thought of Pigul and the rest of the Avodos were done without a thought of Pigul it is considered as though the Korban was offered properly since the thought of Pigul is 'Meratzeh l'Figulo,' similarly, if one of the Matirim was offered with a thought of Pigul and the other was not, it is considered an Avodah that was done entirely with a thought of Pigul, because of the thought of Pigul that was thought during one of the Matirim, and the Avodah is 'Meratzeh l'Figulo.' However, this applies only to two Matirim which are performed in the same location, such as the Haktarah of the Kometz and the Levonah (performed on the outer Mizbe'ach). The same would apply to the various Haza'os that are done in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, and to the various Haza'os that are done in the Heichal. However, if one of the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim was done with Pigul, the thought of Pigul cannot affect the Haza'os done in the Heichal, since they are performed in a different location. It is only in this case that the Gemara asks that an Avodah which is done half with a thought of Pigul and half without should not be 'Meratzeh l'Figulo.'
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Amar Mar) does not seem to make the same distinction as Rabeinu Tam. Rather, it appears from the words of Rashi that even a Chatzi Matir can sometimes be a complete 'Avodah' and can be 'Meratzeh l'Figulo.' However, a single Zerikah or set of Zerikos is not considered a complete 'Avodah,' and therefore it will not be 'Meratzeh l'Figulo.'
</p><p>
Rashi's intention seems to be that when different parts of a Matir are performed with different objects, the part that is performed with each object is considered a separate Avodah. Therefore, the offering of the Kometz and of the Levonah can be considered separate Avodos, even though each one is half a Matir. (The Gemara also refers to the Haktarah of each of the two Bezichei Levonah that are placed on the Shulchan as being a Chatzi Matir. In such a case as well, the Haktarah of each of the Bazichim will be considered a separate Avodah.)
</p><p>
However, the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and the Heichal are performed with the same blood. Therefore, the Avodah of the blood cannot be considered to have been completed until all of the Haza'os are completed. If the Kohen performs half of the Haza'os with a thought of Pigul and half without, it will not be 'Meratzeh l'Figulo.' This is why the Gemara's question applies only to the Haza'os. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
This explanation answers the first question of Tosfos. The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> points out that an answer to the second question of Tosfos can be found in Tosfos in Menachos (16a, DH Bein ba'Rishonah). Tosfos there infers from Rashi that according to Rebbi Meir, if the Kohen Gadol has a thought of Pigul during only some of the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and not during all of them, then it is not considered even Pigul of a Chatzi Matir, and the Korban is valid. The Korban can become Pigul, according to Rebbi Meir, only when the Kohen has a thought of Pigul throughout all of the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, or all of the Haza'os in the Heichal, or all of the Haza'os of the Keranos of the Mizbe'ach, or all of the Haza'os of the top of the Mizbe'ach. The reason for this is that although Rebbi Meir maintains that Pigul can be made with a Chatzi Matir, it cannot be made with a <i>half</i> of a Chatzi Matir (a 'Chatzi Chatzi Matir'). This is why Rebbi Meir says that the Pigul must be done with either the Kometz or the Levonah, implying that it cannot be made Pigul with a thought of Pigul during the Haktarah of half of the Kometz or half of the Levonah.
</p><p>
The Keren Orah asks that according to this understanding, Rebbi Meir should not consider it Pigul when the Kohen has a thought of Pigul during the Haza'ah of one of the four corners of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, just as the Haza'ah, on Yom Kippur, on one of the corners of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is not considered a Chatzi Matir. However, the Mishnah (36b) states clearly that it <i>is</i> considered Pigul under such circumstances, and the Gemara (41b) explains that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir who maintains 'Mefalgin b'Chatzi Matir.' This seems to contradict the assumption of Tosfos in Menachos.
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer to the question of the Keren Orah is as follows. The only reason why Tosfos considers a single Zerikah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, or on one of the corners of the Mizbe'ach, on Yom Kippur to be like a 'Chatzi Kometz' is that on Yom Kippur each set of Haza'os is considered a separate Avodah, as Tosfos there proves from the wording of the Beraisa. Since each one is considered a separate Avodah, a thought of Pigul during <i>half</i> of one is comparable to a thought of Pigul during half of the Kometz or half of the Levonah.
</p><p>
Is this true, however, with regard to the Par He'elem Davar, Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and Se'irei Avodah Zarah as well? The blood of these Korbanos is sprinkled neither in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim nor on the top of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. Rather, it is sprinkled seven times on the Paroches and four times on the corners of the Mizbe'ach. Are these two sets of Haza'os considered separate Avodos, as they are in the case of the Par and Se'ir of Yom Kippur, or are they considered one long Avodah?
</p><p>
The Keren Orah, at the end of the Sugya, and the <b>GEVURAS ARI</b> (Hashmatah to Yoma 61b) assume that the Haza'os of these forms of Chata'os are also considered separate Avodos. Therefore, if the blood spills after the Haza'os on the Paroches and a new Korban must be slaughtered, the Avodah may be continued with the Haza'os on the corners of the Mizbe'ach, and it is not necessary to repeat the Haza'os on the Paroches.
</p><p>
This indeed is the most straightforward reading of the Beraisa here, which seems to apply the phrase, 'Bein ba'Rishonah u'Vein ba'Sheniyah,' to the eleven Haza'os of the other Chata'os as well.
</p><p>
The <b>MIKDAS DAVID</b> (23:4) also takes this approach. He cites support from the words of Rashi in Menachos (7b, DH b'Dam Mai). Others cite support from Rashi in Zevachim (110a, DH ha'Zorek), who says that a person is liable for performing the Haza'os outside of the Azarah only when he performs <i>seven</i> Haza'os outside of the Azarah, which implies that the seven Haza'os constitute a separate Avodah. However, the <b>MINCHAS AVRAHAM</b> (2:18) cites the <b>BRISKER RAV</b> and <b>CHAZON ISH</b> who disagreed with this approach based on logical grounds. They argued that the Haza'os of Yom Kippur are performed in order to attain the Kaparah that the day provides. Therefore, the Korban is secondary to the Haza'os, and thus it is possible to slaughter a new animal in order to complete the Haza'os (which were interrupted by the blood spilling). In contrast, in the case of the other Chata'os ha'Nisrafos, it is the Korban which provides the Kaparah. Therefore, if the blood spills and the animal becomes disqualified, the Haza'os which were already performed also become disqualified. Indeed, the Halachah that the Haza'os of Yom Kippur may be continued from where they left off is derived from a verse which pertains specifically to Yom Kippur. (The Minchas Avraham demonstrates ways to refute the proofs brought in support of the Keren Orah.)
</p><p>
Tosfos in Menachos perhaps differentiates between the Chata'os of Yom Kippur and the other Chata'os ha'Nisrafos. Tosfos maintains that all of the eleven Haza'os of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos are considered a single Avodah. Therefore, any single Haza'ah would be considered a Chatzi Matir. Tosfos writes that a single Haza'ah is considered a 'Chatzi Chatzi Matir' only with regard to the Haza'os of Yom Kippur, since each set of Haza'os is considered a separate Avodah, and thus each set is comparable to the Kometz and Levonah. (M. Kornfeld)</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST INTENT FOR PIGUL BE SPOKEN? <span class='indexentry'>[Pigul: speech]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	27a (Reish Lakish):</span> The Beraisa is Machshir when he was silent. The Mishnah discusses when he said (that he intends Chutz li'Zmano).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	29b (R. Yanai):</span> One who offers Kodshim with improper intent is lashed - 'Lo Yechashev'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Ashi):</span> One is not lashed for a Lav without an action!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	30a (Abaye):</span> The Mishnah discusses one who said that he slaughters the first Siman Chutz li'Zmano, and the second Siman Chutz li'Mkomo.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	41b (Mishnah - R. Meir):</span> If a Kohen was Mefagel in the Kometz (of a Minchah) but not the frankincense, or vice-versa, the Minchah is Pigul, and one (who eats it) is Chayav Kares;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim (things that permit it, in this case, the Kometz *and* frankincense).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> R. Meir does not say that intent to be Mefagel in one of the Matirim makes Pigul. He agrees that one must be Mefagel in all the Matirim;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	The case is, the Kohen verbalized his intent (Chutz li'Zmano) in the Kometz, then offered the frankincense silently;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	R. Meir says that we assume that (unless he specifies otherwise,) he does all Avodos according to his initial intent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 63a (Rabah):</span> The Beraisa discusses one who did not finish saying the second intent until after slaughter. R. Meir does not require equality of (words uttered by his) mouth and heart (intent). Therefore, the first intent (which he said before slaughter) takes effect by itself, even though he did not want this. Chachamim require equality of mouth and heart, therefore, his words do not take effect.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Metzia 44a (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</span> 'Al Kol Devar Pesha' obligates for intent like for action.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gitin 54b (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna):</span> The Chata'os offered in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim on Yom Kipur show that the Torah believes one witness. How could we know that they became Pigul (through Zerikah)? 'No (other) man will be in the Ohel Mo'ed (when the Kohen Gadol offers these)'! We must say that the Kohen Gadol is believed!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> Perhaps someone saw the Kohen Gadol through an opening in the wall of the Heichal (and heard him say that he intends Chutz li'Zmano during Zerikah)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 39a (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</span> In Kodshim, (improper) intent disqualifies a Korban. In Chulin, intent does not disqualify Shechitah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> What do the last words mean?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> Any intent at all does not forbid Chulin.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> If so, how does an animal offered to idolatry become forbidden?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Rather, Chulin are not disqualified if one Avodah (e.g. Shechitah) was done with intent to do another Avodah for idolatry. In Kodshim, one Avodah done with intent to do another Avodah with improper intent disqualifies a Korban.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 13:1):</span> Three intents disqualify Korbanos - Lo Lishmah, Chutz li'Mkomo and Chutz li'Zmano. What is intent Lo Lishmah?...</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishneh l'Melech:</span> The Rambam connotes that intent in Kodshim is even without speech.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (18:1):</span> Anyone who has an improper intent in Kodshim transgresses a Lav 'Lo Yechashev.' This forbids disqualifying Kodshim through intent. It is like blemishing a Korban.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tiferes Yisrael (Kelim 25:9, Bo'as 10):</span> Rashi (Kidushin 41b DH she'Ken) holds that 'Machshavah' refers to intent without speech. (Note: the Maharshal deletes from Rashi words that say so explicitly about Pigul.) The Rambam agrees. A Magihah wanted to prove from Zevachim 29 that it is through speech, for surely one is not lashed for mere intent! This is no proof. The Gemara means that if he said the intent he is lashed, but mere intent suffices to make Pigul!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Mordechai (2:5):</span> Many say that the Rambam holds that Pigul is even without speech. The Chafetz Chayim (Likutei Hilchos Zevachim 21, Zevach Todah) and Yad Malachi (Klalei ha'Rambam) say that the Rambam is wont to cite the Gemara verbatim: Therefore, there is no proof from here or other places that the Rambam holds that mere intent forbids. One can say so also about Sefer ha'Chinuch (brought below), who goes in the footsteps of the Rambam. Further, the Rambam (14:10) says 'one who intended to eat half a k'Zayis outside and to burn half a k'Zayis outside... if Hotzi'u (he expressed) both of these in an expression of eating, e.g. he said 'I will eat...', they join. The Rambam uses interchangeably 'intent' and 'speech'. The Sifri on Devarim 17:1 learns from 'Kol Davar' that it depends on Dibur. The Malbim says that Chachamim always expounded 'Davar' to refers to speech.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Hilchos Sefer Torah 3,4):</span> Regarding Pigul it says 'Lo Yeratzeh (some texts - Lo Yechashev)', and speech is required (Zevachim 27a).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (41b DH Kegon):</span> Every intent in Kodshim is spoken.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Menachos 2b DH Machshavah):</span> Intent in Kodshim is spoken, like it says in Bava Metzia that 'Al Kol Devar Pesha' obligates for intent like for action. If he did not say anything, for what can we obligate him?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Bava Metzia 43b DH ha'Choshev):</span> Intent refers to speech, like we learn from 'Al Kol Devar Pesha.' Likewise, intent for Pigul is through speech, like is proven in Zevachim 30a, Menachos 2b, Pesachim 63a, and Gitin 54a.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Chulin 39a DH Ela):</span> If Pigul forbids even without speech, why didn't we explain 'in Kodshim, unspoken intent disqualifies a Korban, but in Chulin, it does not'?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos Yom Tov (Bava Metzia 3:12 DH ha'Choshev):</span> Why is Tosfos unsure? In Bava Metzia, he was sure that speech is required. This is clear from Zevachim 30. Devarim 17:1 says 'do not slaughter... any Davar Ra.' Rashi explains that this forbids being Mefagel Kodshim through an evil Dibur. The Mizrachi says that really, it does not depend on Dibur. He erred.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> Maharil (Chadashos 211, and so connotes Maharsha Gitin 74a) says that Tosfos in different Masechtos had different authors (editors), so we do not ask contradictions between them. (Perhaps Tosfos Yom Tov knew that Bava Metzi'a and Zevachim had the same author.) The Magihah in Teshuvas ha'Rid (below) says that Tosfos' intent is to prove that Pigul forbids only through speech.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas ha'Rid (87):</span> Pigul forbids only through speech.  If even unspoken intent forbade, the same would apply to idolatry. There would be no source to distinguish them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magihah:</span> Our Sugya (Chulin 39a), and the Sugya of an animal crouched in front of idolatry (40a) connote that even unspoken intent for idolatry forbids. This is difficult for all the Rishonim who hold that intent for Pigul must be spoken (for there is no source to distinguish them).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	The questioner in Noda b'Yehudah (2 YD 168):</span> We can prove from Zevachim 29b that Pigul does not require speech. Rav Ashi said that one is not lashed for Pigul, for there is no action. We hold like R. Yochanan, that speech is an action! Even though Tosfos says that this is only when his speech does something, here it disqualifies the Korban!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Noda b'Yehudah (2 YD 168):</span> The Rambam rules like speech is an action only regarding Temurah, swearing and cursing. Meforshim ask why the Rambam rules unlike R. Yochanan. I say that he learns from Rav Ashi! Even though Pigul is only through speech, it is not considered an action. Disqualifying an animal is not as much of an action as Temurah, which makes a Chulin animal Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sefer ha'Chinuch (144):</span> Pigul is when the Kohen offering a Korban had a Pasul intent at the time of Shechitah or Hakravah. It is when he resolved in his mind at the time of Avodah to eat from the Korban after the permitted time.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Me'iri (Pesachim 63a):</span> Intents in Kodshim, of Pigul, Pasul, and who will eat from Korban Pesach need not be spoken. If he resolved in his mind, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 274:1):</span> When a scribe begins to write a Sefer Torah, he says 'I write this l'Shem Kedushas Sefer Torah.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Be'er ha'Golah (1):</span> It seems that b'Di'eved, intent suffices, for the Rambam and Semag say that Pigul is through intent without speech, and the Ra'avad did not disagree.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) A PART OF A KORBAN THAT HAS NO 'MATIR'</b></font>
<br>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.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
As <b>TOSFOS</b> 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?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS CHADASHIM</b> (on Mishnayos) and the <b>SEFAS EMES</b> 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 <i>can</i> 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.
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, the <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, and the <b>RASHASH</b> 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?
</p><p>
(b) <b>RAV ELAZAR MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ</b> 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 <i>not</i> 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 <i>are</i> 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.
</p><p>
(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 <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> writes that it is for this reason that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (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.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) CAUSING THE MEAT OF 'PARIM HA'NISRAFIM' TO BECOME 'PIGUL'</b></font>
<br>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 <i>meat</i> of these animals to be burned (at the Beis ha'Deshen)?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (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.
</p><p>
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 <i>cannot</i> become permitted. Therefore, the meat cannot become Pigul since it does not have a Matir.
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> 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.
</p><p>
It is clear from the words of Rebbi Elazar that the meat of the Chatas ha'Nisrefes <i>can</i> 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 <i>does</i> become Pigul. This contradicts the ruling of the Rambam that the meat of the Chata'os ha'Nisrafos cannot become Pigul.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Rambam understands the words of Rebbi Elazar differently. The Gemara does not say explicitly that the <i>meat</i> of the Chatas ha'Nisrefes becomes Pigul, but rather that the '<i>Parim</i>' 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 <i>fats</i> become Asur as Pigul, even though they are not fully edible, and not that the <i>meat</i> 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.)
</p><p>
(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?
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> 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 <i>before</i> the Zerikah.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
(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)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN DOES FOOD CEASE TO BE CONSIDERED FOOD? <span class='indexentry'>[Chametz: spoiled]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yitzchak):</span> If Pigul, Nosar or Tamei was brought up on the Mizbe'ach, the Isur goes away.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Zeira):</span> The case is, it caught fire.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna - Beraisa - Acherim):</span> 'V'Tum'aso (his or its Tum'ah) Alav' refers to one (i.e. a person) whose Tum'ah can cease (through immersion). It does not refer to Tamei meat, for its Tum'ah never goes away.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	According to R. Yitzchak, meat can become Tahor!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rava):</span> The Tana means that Tum'as Basar never goes away through immersion.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> The verse does not mention immersion. The Tana says that the Tum'ah cannot cease through any means!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Ravina):</span> 'V'Tum'aso Alav' refers to one (i.e. a person) whose Tum'ah can cease while he is intact. It does not refer to meat, for its Tum'ah does not cease until some of it is missing (burned).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'V'Tum'aso Alav' refers to a Tum'as ha'Guf;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Meir:</span> It cannot refer to Tamei meat, for 'v'Tum'aso Alav' refers to one whose Tum'ah can cease. Tum'ah of meat never goes away.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 21b:</span> If Chametz was charred before the time (of Isur), it is permitted even after Chametz is forbidden.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	45b (Beraisa):</span> One must be Meva'er (destroy) moldy bread, because one can grind it up and use it to ferment other dough. (Therefore, it is forbidden like Se'or (sourdough, which is used to ferment other doughs);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	R. Shimon ben Elazar says, this is if it is being kept (for fermenting, which is) for the sake of eating. Kofes Se'or (a block of heavily leavened dough) which was designated for sitting is Batel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Only R. Shimon says that it is Batel. The first Tana holds that even 'Bitul' (designation for sitting) does not help for a k'Zayis (it is still considered Chametz)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If bread became moldy and is not fit for people to eat but dogs would eat it, it has Tum'as Ochlim if it is k'Beitzah (the size of an egg), and (even if it is Terumah) it may be burned with Tamei (Chametz) on (Erev) Pesach;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span>	R. Noson says, it does not have Tum'as Ochlim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span>	The following Mishnah is unlike R. Noson.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> The general rule is, anything (that was initially) fit for people to eat is Mekabel Tum'ah as long as dogs would eat it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 67b (Beraisa):</span> 'Lo Sochlu Chol Nevelah la'Ger (...Titnenah va'Achalah)' - it is called (and forbidden like) Neveilah only if a Ger (Toshav) would eat it.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Pesachim 14a):</span> If something is spoiled and dogs would not eat it, it ceases to be a food. It is like earth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Tanu):</span> Why is Bi'ur required (if people cannot eat it, but dogs would eat it)? A Neveilah not proper for a Ger to eat is not a Neveilah (Avodah Zarah 67b)! We permit detrimental absorptions, even of Chametz during Pesach! Here is different, since it can be used to ferment other doughs. The Gemara says that Se'or is not proper to eat, and even so the Torah forbids it for this reason (Beitzah 7b). The Mechilta says so.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 14a, 3:4):</span> A Tosefta says that if flour was put into a bandage for the eye or the body, it is exempt from Bi'ur. If a Melugma (plaster put on a wound) spoiled, it is exempt from Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Melugma):</span> The Tosefta exempts Melugma from Bi'ur when it spoiled before Pesach. This is like Chametz charred before the time (of Bi'ur). It is permitted after the time. If it spoiled during Pesach, if it spoiled before becoming Chametz, this is like Chametz charred before the time. The Isur does not take effect on it, so it is exempt from Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 1:2):</span> The Isur of Chametz and Se'or is the same.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> There is a difference. If Chametz was spoiled to the point that dogs would not eat it, it is exempt from Bi'ur, but one must be Meva'er such Se'or, for one can grind it up to ferment other doughs. A Tosefta obligates Bi'ur of moldy bread for this reason. It must discuss bread of Se'or. We would not need this reason for Chametz!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (4:10):</span> If flour was put into a bandage for the eye or the body or Tri'ak (a special potion), one may keep it during Pesach, for it lost the form of Chametz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</span> This is wrong. He heard this from elsewhere. This is not the reason.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (11):</span> If bread became moldy and spoiled so that dogs would not eat it, or Melugma spoiled, it is exempt from Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> The Yerushalmi says that this is when it spoiled and later became Chametz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Rif and Rambam omitted the Yerushalmi, because it discusses when it became Chametz during Pesach, and then we require that it spoil before becoming Chametz. The Tosefta discusses when it spoiled before Pesach, so when Pesach comes, the Isur of Chametz does not take effect on it, for it is spoiled. It is like moldy bread that dogs cannot eat, which surely became Chametz before becoming moldy. Perhaps dogs would not eat a spoiled Melugma, and therefore the Rif and Rambam wrote Stam (that it is exempt from Bi'ur).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> The Yerushalmi says that if a Melugma became Chametz and afterwards spoiled, one must be Meva'er it. Rav Hai Gaon says that since one need not be Meva'er a Melugma that spoiled, all the more so we exempt Tri'ak in which they mix in dry minced Chametz with meat of Afah (a viper?).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 442:2):</span> If bread became moldy and spoiled so that dogs would not eat it, or Melugma spoiled, it is exempt from Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH ha'Kilur):</span> The Tur holds like the Rosh, who did not distinguish between becoming Chametz before Pesach or during Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> The Shulchan Aruch permits when it became moldy before the time of Isur. If it became moldy after the time of Isur, one must be Meva'er it, even if it is so moldy that dogs would not eat it, since he needed to do Bi'ur before it became moldy.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (10):</span> If dogs would not eat it, it is exempt from Bi'ur, for it is like earth. If dogs would eat it, even though people would not eat it, one must be Meva'er it like proper Chametz, since it can be used to ferment other doughs.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (11):</span> Melugma is an (ointment put on a) bandage made from flour, figs and similar ingredients. One chews them and puts them on the wound.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (12):</span> Also Melugma must spoil to the point that dogs would not eat it. If it fermented and then spoiled, one may not keep it (during Pesach). Rather, it spoiled before Pesach, like we said about bread. If it spoiled before it fermented, it is permitted even during Pesach, for this is like bread that became moldy before the time of Isur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (25):</span> It seems that 'after the time of Isur' is after six hours (on Erev Pesach). However, Mekor Chaim (4) says that it means during Pesach. If it spoiled after six hours, one may keep it and it is permitted after Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (26):</span> The Torah obligates Bi'ur even after people cannot eat it, unless it spoiled before it became Chametz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (27):</span> Mekor Chaim says that bread was a proper food before it became moldy, therefore it is forbidden until dogs would not eat it. If a Chametz dough became moldy and people would not eat it, this is Chametz Nuksheh (and it is permitted), for it was never a food. Magen ha'Elef forbids, for it could be used to to ferment other doughs.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (9):</span> If Chametz became moldy before the time of Isur to the point that dogs would not eat it, or it was burned (Rema - before the time) and charred to the point that dogs would not eat it, one may keep it during Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH ):</span> Tosfos (21b DH Charcho) says that the Chametz was charred to the point that dogs would not eat it. If not, it is not permitted, just like bread that became moldy. Also the Rosh (2:1) says so. The Ran adds that if it was charred only after the time of Isur, the Isur does not go away until it is totally burned.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (14):</span> Even though people would not eat it, it is forbidden because it can be used to ferment other doughs. We do not distinguish between Chametz and Se'or. This is unlike the Ra'avad.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Chametz):</span> The Ra'avad holds that one is always obligated to be Meva'er Se'or. His text did not say Kofes Se'or, rather, Pas Se'or. The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Elazar. We can reject his proof. The case is, it was spoiled to the point that dogs would not eat it. However, Hagahos Maimoniyos brings a Tosefta that says that Se'or is what ferments other things, and Chametz is what was fermented through something else. It is called Se'or once dogs would not eat it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Chametz):</span> The Magid Mishneh and Kesef Mishneh defend the Rambam, who permits even Se'or once dogs would not eat it. The Gra supports the Ra'avad form the Tosefta. The Pri Chodosh concluded that the Halachah follows the Ra'avad. How can the Rambam answer the Tosefta?! We must say like the Kesef Mishneh says, that even though the Torah obligates for Se'or even though dogs would not eat it, this is when it spoiled due to overfermentation. (This is like Chametz into which something very sharp was poured, and it cannot be eaten due to the sharpness. It did not cease to be a food.) If it became moldy to the point that dogs would not eat it, even if it were not so fermented, we can say that it is like earth. The Kesef Mishneh says that even the Ra'avad obligates only Bi'ur (after it is so moldy), but he exempts one who eats it. The Pri Megadim left this difficult, due to the Tosefta. We can answer that like I said. Even if the Ra'avad obligates one who eats it, the Rambam can distinguish between when it is inedible due to overfermentation or due to moldiness.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) REMOVING THE 'ISURIM' OF 'PIGUL,' 'NOSAR,' AND 'TAMEI'</b></font>
<br>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.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (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.
</p><p>
There are a number of difficulties with the words of the Gemara and Rashi.
</p><p>
(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! (<b>BACH</b>, <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b>)
</p><p>
(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)!
</p><p>
(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!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(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.
</p><p>
1. The <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> 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.
</p><p>
The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b>, 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?
</p><p>
Support for the understanding of the Birkas ha'Zevach -- that only the <i>Kometz</i> (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 <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> #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.
</p><p>
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 <i>prove</i> that the Isur of Pigul is removed from a Matir, such as the Kometz. His logic is not a <i>reason</i> for the Isur to be removed. Rather, the <i>reason</i> 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.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#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 <i>all</i> Isurim will be removed for the same reason.
</p><p>
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?
</p><p>
2. The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#17) emends Rashi's words by adding the letter 'Vav' ('<i>v</i>'she'Lo Yischayev ha'Ochlo Midi'). The <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> (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 <i>also</i> removed in this regard. Rashi then adds that <i>all three</i> Isurim are also removed with regard to their Isur Achilah.
</p><p>
(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 <i>remove</i> 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.
</p><p>
(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.
</p><p>
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.</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ENTIRE BERAISA AND ITS EXPLANATION</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the second part of a Beraisa which says, 'Or perhaps one may bring only a Korban [and make it Pigul] which is like a Shelamim? Just as Shelamim is unique in that it may be eaten for two days and one night, so, too, Pigul should apply only to Korbanos which are eaten for two days and one night. What is the source that Korbanos eaten for one day and one night also can become Pigul? The verse 'mi'Besar,' 'from the flesh' (Vayikra 7:18), teaches that even such Korbanos can become Pigul.'
</p><p>
What does the first part of the Beraisa say, the part not quoted by the Gemara? <b>RASHI</b> (DH O Eino Mevi) explains that this Beraisa is found in the Toras Kohanim. The first part of the Beraisa states that one might think that Pigul applies only to a Korban Shelamim. What is the source that it applies to other Korbanos as well? The Beraisa answers that this is derived through a Gezeirah Shavah from the Isur which prohibits a Kohanim from bringing a Korban when he is Tamei. The Beraisa continues to derive, from various verses, that Pigul applies to other Korbanos, such as a Korban Olah.
</p><p>
The Acharonim seek to clarify this Beraisa.
</p><p>
The first part and second part of the Beraisa seem to be teaching the same thing. Both provide sources that Pigul applies not only to Shelamim but to other Korbanos as well. Why, though, are two different teachings necessary for this?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>KORBAN AHARON</b> explains that the Beraisa first learns that the Gezeirah Shavah from Tum'ah to Pigul applies not only to Shelamim but also to Bechor, which is eaten for two days and one night, like Shelamim. However, the Gezeirah Shavah might not apply to Korbanos which are eaten only for a day and a night. The word 'mi'Besar' teaches that any Korbanos eaten for a day and a night also can become Pigul.
</p><p>
The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> has difficulty with the explanation of the Korban Aharon. The Beraisa begins with a Gezeirah Shavah which apparently teaches that just as a Kohen may not offer <i>any</i> Korban when he is Tamei, he has the power to make <i>any</i> Korban become Pigul. Why does the Beraisa need to seek other sources to teach that Korbanos that are eaten for one day and one night, and a Korban Olah, are subject to Pigul?
</p><p>
(b) The Chok Nasan gives an alternate explanation. The Gemara later (28b) explains that a Korban becomes Pigul only if the Kohen has a Machsheves Pigul <i>and</i> performs the rest of the Avodos of the Korban in the proper manner. If the primary Avodah (the Zerikah) is not done, the Korban does not acquire the status of Pigul despite the fact that the Kohen had a Machsheves Pigul. However, it is possible that this Halachah applies only to Kodshim Kalim, which are similar to Shelamim, while for Kodshei Kodashim the Torah confers the status of Pigul on the Korban immediately, regardless of whether or not the primary Avodah is done. This is the consideration which causes the Gemara to require another Limud for Korbanos that are eaten for one day and one night, a Korban Olah, and other types of Korbanos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> quotes the <b>ASIRIS HA'EIFAH</b> on the Toras Kohanim who explains the Beraisa as follows. The Gezeirah Shavah from Tum'ah is based on the verse, 'v'Yinazru mi'Kodshei Bnei Yisrael' -- 'And they (the Kohanim who are Tamei) shall separate themselves from the Kodshim of Bnei Yisrael' (Vayikra 22:2). The second part of the verse says, 'Asher Hem Makdishim Li' -- 'which they consecrate to Me.' The first and second part of the verse seemingly have different implications. The phrase 'mi'Kodshei' -- 'from the Kodshim of...' -- implies that the verse refers only to <i>some</i>, but not <i>all</i>, of the Kodshim of Bnei Yisrael. The second part of the verse, however, does not limited its application, as it discusses all Korbanos that Bnei Yisrael consecrate to Hash-m. It must be that all Korbanos are forbidden for a Kohen to offer when he is Tamei. However, since the Gezeirah Shavah is learned from the first part of the verse, it should teach only that 'mi'Kodshei' -- 'from the Kodshim' -- become Pigul, but not all Korbanos become Pigul. This is why the Beraisa cannot learn all Korbanos from the Gezeirah Shavah, and it learns from the Gezeirah Shavah only that Korbanos similar to Shelamim can become Pigul. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MATANOS KEHUNAH ARE THE KOHEN'S PROPERTY <span class='indexentry'>[Matanos Kehunah: Mamon Ba'alim]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span>	'Lecha Hu' teaches that the money of Gezel ha'Ger (if one stole from a convert, swore to deny it, and repents after the convert died without heirs, he gives the money to a Kohen) belongs to the Kohen. He may use it like he wants. He may even be Mekadesh a woman with it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Kama 12b (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</span> 'He transgressed in Hash-m (and denied his fellowman)' includes Kodshim Kalim, which (pertain to Hash-m and) are (also) Mamon Ba'alim (the owner's property).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If one was Mekadesh with his portion of Kodshim, whether Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	This can even be like R. Yosi ha'Glili. He said that Kodshim Kalim are Mamon Ba'alim only in the life of the animal. After Shechitah, he agrees that they are considered Hashem's, just we may eat them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Does R. Yosi ha'Glili really hold that Kodshim Kalim are Mamon Ba'alim in the life of the animal?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> A Tam (unblemished) Bechor (male firstborn animal) may be sold when alive. If it is blemished, it may be sold alive or slaughtered. He (the Kohen) may use it to be Mekadesh a woman.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Nachman):</span> This is only nowadays. Since it cannot be offered, Kohanim own it. When the Mikdash stands, Kohanim do not own it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</span> 'U'Ma'al Ma'al ba'Hashem' includes Kodshim Kalim, which are Mamon Ba'alim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Ravina):</span> The Beraisa discusses a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz, according to R. Shimon. He holds that if they were brought to the Mikdash Tam, they are offered. L'Chatchilah, we do not bring them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Summation of question):</span> If R. Yosi ha'Glili holds that they are Mamon Ba'alim while they are alive, Ravina should rather have answered that the Beraisa is R. Yosi, and Rav Nachman's law is like Chachamim!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Gifts to the Kohen are unlike other Kodshim Kalim. They are Hashem's (just the Kohen may eat them).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	53b (Abaye):</span> If Reuven's ox and a blemished Korban gored together, Reuven pays half-damage;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ravina):</span> He pays quarter-damage.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span>	Ravina discusses a Tam, according to Chachamim (who hold that one does not collect from one damager what cannot be collected from another damager). Abaye discusses a Mu'ad, *or* a Tam according to R. Nasan, who argues with Chachamim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Zevachim 114a:</span> Question: If an animal was Ne'evad or Muktzeh (worshipped or designated for worship), since no action was not done to the animal itself, only the owner can forbid it. Once it is Hekdesh, he ceases to own it!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Our Mishnah discusses Kodshim Kalim. It is like R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that Kodshim Kalim are considered Mamon Ba'alim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 36b:</span> '(Kodesh) meat that will touch anything Tamei (may not be eaten)' teaches that meat of Korbanos become Huchsher (susceptible to receive Tum'ah) due to Chibas (the dearness of) ha'Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> Perhaps the Hechsher was like Rav Yehudah said. A Shelamim was taken through a river, and it was still wet when it was slaughtered.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 8:1):</span> If a person's ox gored a Hekdesh ox or vice-versa, it is exempt. Payment of damage does not apply to any Hekdesh to which Me'ilah applies.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Lechem Mishneh:</span> This is like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who holds that there is Hekdesh to which Me'ilah does not apply, i.e. Kodshim Kalim. They are Mamon Ba'alim, so payments for damage apply to them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (Ketzos ha'Choshen 406:1):</span> We say (Chulin 36a) that perhaps a Shelamim was taken through a river, and it was still wet when it was slaughtered, and this was Machshir it. The Rambam (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlim 12:1) says that Hechsher requires the owner's consent that it become wet. On 114a, the only way we find that someone owns a Korban is Kodshim Kalim, according to R. Yosi. This explains why Rav Yehudah mentioned a Shelamim (it is Kodshim Kalim).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Bava Kama 1:15):</span> We conclude that R. Yosi ha'Glili agrees that when the Mikdash stands, Matanos Kehunah are not Mamon Ba'alim. However, nowadays a Bechor is Mamon Ba'alim and can be used to be Mekadesh a woman even if it is Tam. Rabanan hold that even a live Ba'al Mum is not Mamon Ba'alim, like we say on 53b. Rav Yehudai Ga'on explains that Abaye and Ravina discuss a Bechor ox, which cannot be redeemed. Presumably, they argued about the Halachah in their days (after the Churban). This (its exemption for damage) shows that it is not Mamon Ba'alim, for one may not shear it or work with it or (regarding other blemished Korbanos) milk it. Some rule like R. Yosi ha'Glili, for the Stam Mishnah is like him. Rava established the Mishnah like Chachamim, but he retracted due to a question against himself. However, it seems to me that the Halachah follows Chachamim, since Abaye and Ravina argue about according to Chachamim, and they are Basra. If so, if a Kohen was Mekadesh with a live Bechor, she is not Mekudeshes. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Bechoros 5:1):</span> A Mishnah teaches that one may sell a Bechor Tam when alive, and blemished alive or slaughtered. He may use it to be Mekadesh a woman. Rav Nachman said that this is nowadays, when it cannot be offered, so Kohanim own it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 1:34):</span> Our Mishnah is like R. Yosi ha'Glili. He admits about Matanos Kehunah, including Bechor at the time of the Mikdash. It is not Mamon Ba'alim; Kohanim receive their portion from Hash-m. It is improper to be Mekadesh a woman with it, and it is like Hekdesh regarding damage. Nowadays, even if it is Tam, it is Mamon Ba'alim to be Mekadesh a woman and everything. The Halachah follows R. Yosi, for the Mishnah is like him. The Rosh brought a proof from 53b. I disagree. Abaye and Ravina just show different laws based on R. Noson's law. In one version there, both teach according to Chachamim, even though the Halachah follows R. Noson. Likewise, even though the Halachah follows R. Yosi, they discuss the law according to Chachamim. This is relevant to us (who rule like R. Yosi) nowadays, regarding a Hekdesh ox. Also, even though the Halachah always follows Chachamim, even when they argue with Tana'im whom the Halachah normally follows, such as R. Noson, who was a judge, his words are Batel against Chachamim. Even so, the Rif rules like him because scrutiny shows that the Mishnah is like him. Similarly, scrutiny shows that the Mishnah is like R. Yosi, even though Chachamim disagree. Whenever the Beraisa of R. Yosi ha'Glili is brought, only his opinion is cited. This shows that his opinion is primary. I say that the Rosh retracted. In Bechoros he brings the Mishnah to be the Halachah, and here he says 'this requires investigation.' Therefore, nowadays Kidushin with a live Bechor Tam, or a Ba'al Mum live or slaughtered, is Mekudeshes mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (12b DH u'Mekadshin):</span> The Kohen can be Mekadesh with a Bechor. He is the owner from when it is born.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 306:6):</span> Nowadays, a Kohen may sell a Bechor even to a Yisrael when it is Tam (unblemished) and alive, or when it has a Mum alive or slaughtered. He can be Mekadesh a woman with it, for it is like any of his property.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (EH 28:23):</span> Nowadays, if the owner of a Bechor was Mekadesh a woman with it, she is Safek Mekudeshes.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chelkas Mechokek (43):</span> Stam, the Kohen is the owner of a Bechor, like Rashi says. This is from the Mishnah that permits selling a Bechor or being Mekadesh with it. The Shulchan Aruch rules like this in YD. Here the Shulchan Aruch says that she is Safek Mekudeshes, like the Rosh in Bava Kama. Also the Rosh contradicts himself. In Bechoros, he rules like the Mishnah without Safek. Even in Bava Kama the Rosh was unsure only about a live Bechor, for one may not shear or work it. A slaughtered Ba'al Mum is Mamon Ba'alim in every way. One may feed it even to a Nochri or dog. All the more so one may be Mekadesh a woman with it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (60):</span> Nowadays, Kidushin with a live Bechor is a Safek, but after a Ba'al Mum was slaughtered, all agree that it is the Kohen's money. In YD, the Shulchan Aruch says that one can be Mekadesh a woman with it, i.e. after Shechitah, which was the last case discussed there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (61):</span> Abaye and Rava (it seems that this should say 'Ravina' - PF) argue about according to Chachamim (of R. Yosi), i.e. about a live Bechor. What the Shulchan Aruch wrote in YD is primary.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) BRINGING THE 'LOG SHEMEN' ON A LATER DAY</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Beraisa quotes the opinion of the Chachamim who maintain that a person who is obligated to bring a Korban Asham together with a Log of oil may bring the Korban one day and the Log of oil ten days later.
</p><p>
Do the Chachamim mean that even l'Chatchilah a person may bring his Log of oil later if he wishes, or do they mean only that the Korban Asham is valid b'Di'eved if the Log of oil is not brought on the same day?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Temurah (14a, DH Minchasam) writes that the only reason why one would not bring the oil on the same day as he brings the Korban is that he has no oil available at that time. This implies that even according to the Chachamim, l'Chatchilah one must bring the Log of oil when he brings the Korban Asham.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Rosh Hashanah (30b, DH v'Niskalkelu) also maintains that, l'Chatchilah, the oil should be brought together with the Korban Asham. Tosfos writes that the reason is that one is supposed to bring the entire Korban (including the Log) when the Shirah is sung in the Beis ha'Mikdash. If the Log is brought later, it might be brought when the Shirah is not being sung. Tosfos explains that the Gemara in Temurah (12a) is uncertain about whether or not the Shirah is sung when the Nesachim are brought long after the Korban, which caused them to be brought, was offered. Also, Nesachim that are brought by themselves are allowed to be brought at night, when there is no Shirah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The <b>EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> points out that there is a significant difference between the explanation of Rashi and that of Tosfos. Shirah is sung only when a <i>public</i> Korban Asham of the Tzibur is offered. When a private Korban Asham is offered, there is no Shirah. Hence, according to Tosfos, an individual who brings his own private Korban Asham may bring, l'Chatchilah, the oil ten days later. According to Rashi, there is no difference between a public Korban Asham and a private one; in both cases, the oil must be brought with the Korban, and if it is brought later, the Korban is valid only b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 2:14) writes, 'A person may bring his Korban today and his Nesachim ten days later; [this applies to] both an individual and the public.' The Rambam's wording implies that one may bring the Nesachim, or Log of oil, later even l'Chatchilah. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) ARE 'NESACHIM' OFFERED WITH A NOCHRI'S 'KORBAN OLAH'?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses various laws of a Korban donated by a Nochri. One law is that the Nochri does not have to bring Nesachim with his Korban. A different Beraisa derives this from the verse which places the requirement of Nesachim on an 'Ezrach' -- 'citizen' (Bamidbar 15:13), meaning a member of the Jewish people. The Beraisa continues that one may have assumed that the Korban Olah of a Nochri needs no Nesachim at all, and therefore the verse says 'Kachah' -- 'so it should be' (ibid.), to teach that although the Nesachim do not have to be brought by the Nochri, his Korban should be offered with Nesachim. Who supplies the Nesachim that are offered with the Korban of a Nochri?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Talmud Lomar) writes that although the Nochri does not have to bring Nesachim, if he sends the money for the Nesachim along with his Korban, that money may be used to purchase wine for Nesachim. If he chooses not to provide money for the Nesachim, public funds are used to purchase the Nesachim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 3:5) writes, 'The Olos of Nochrim do not have Nesachim brought from them.... However, their Nesachim are brought from the public.' The Rambam implies that a Nochri cannot send Nesachim at all, and if he does, they are not accepted.
</p><p>
Many Acharonim have difficulty with the ruling of the Rambam. Rashi quotes the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) which states that if a Nochri sends money for Nesachim, those Nesachim are offered with his Korban. The Gemara in Menachos (73b) also seems to conclude that a Nochri may send his Nesachim along with his Korban, according to Rebbi Akiva. Why does the Rambam rule otherwise?
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> answers that the Rambam's ruling is based on his Girsa of the Mishnah and Gemara in Temurah (3a). Rashi himself in Temurah (3a, DH Talmud Lomar) quotes two texts, and he cites both of the above explanations. Although the explanation of Rashi here in Zevachim is consistent with the Mishnah in Shekalim and with one version of the text in Temurah (and therefore seems to be the correct explanation), the Mahari Kurkus suggests that the Rambam must have conclusive evidence (in his opinion) that the other text is correct. Despite the fact that the Gemara in Menachos (73a) concludes that Rebbi Akiva maintains that a Nochri may send Nesachim along with his Korban, an alternate explanation of the Gemara understands that Rebbi Akiva does <i>not</i> maintain that a Nochri may send Nesachim. Although the Gemara there rejects this explanation, the Rambam apparently maintains that the Gemara in Temurah does not reject that approach. Once the Rambam bases himself on the explanation of Rebbi Akiva, the Mishnah in Shekalim (7:6) is not relevant, due to the principle of 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chaveiro' -- the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva over his colleague. This is why the Rambam rules that a Nochri may not send Nesachim with his Korban.
</p><p>
The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> rejects the answer of the Mahari Kurkus based on an explicit ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim (4:3). The Rambam there writes that '[when] a Nochri sends an Olah from a different country and <i>does not send money for Nesachim</i>, they should bring the Nesachim from the Terumas ha'Lishkah.' According to the Mahari Kurkus, the Rambam contradicts himself!
</p><p>
2. The Lechem Mishneh therefore explains that the Rambam indeed maintains that a Nochri <i>may</i> send money for Nesachim. In Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos, the Rambam means merely that a Nochri is not required to send Nesachim, but not that he cannot send Nesachim if he wants to do so (as the Rambam mentions in Hilchos Shekalim).
</p><p>
This explanation seems quite straightforward. Why does the Mahari Kurkus not give this explanation?
</p><p>
The <b>MEKOROS V'TZIYUNIM</b> (of the <b>FRANKEL</b> edition of the <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 3:5) points out that most Acharonim, including the Mahari Kurkus, have a different text of the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim which read, 'One who sends...,' and not, 'A Nochri who sends....' They therefore understand that the Rambam in Hilchos Shekalim refers to a Jew, not to a Nochri, in which case the Rambam's terminology in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos implies that a Nochri may not send Nesachim at all.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DOES HEKDESH OR A BEIS HA'KENESES ACQUIRE THROUGH CHATZER? <span class='indexentry'>[Chatzer :Kinyan :Hekdesh]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One may not benefit from Kodshim of Nochrim. One who benefited did not transgress Me'ilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	One may not benefit from them mid'Rabanan. We learn that Me'ilah does not apply to them from a Gezerah Shavah 'Chet-Chet' from Terumah. Regarding Terumah it says 'Benei Yisrael.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Basra 79a (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</span> If one was Makdish an empty pit, wasteheap or dovecote, and it became full of water, manure or doves, Me'ilah applies to it, but not to what came later.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	R. Yosi says, if one was Makdish a field or a tree, Me'ilah applies to it and what grows, for what grows is Hekdesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Rebbi taught that R. Yosi agrees with R. Yehudah's about a pit and dovecote. R. Yosi argues only about a field and tree.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevuos 24b (Mishnah):</span> One can be liable four Korbanos Chatas and an Asham for eating an olive's worth. The case is, a Tamei person ate Chelev that was Nosar from Kodshim, on Yom Kipur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> According to Rava, we can find a fifth Chatas. He swore 'I will not eat figs or Chelev.' Since the oath applies to figs, it applies also to Chelev!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The Tana only lists prohibitions that cannot be annulled.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> One can annul making the animal a Korban!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We discuss a Bechor (a firstborn. It is a Korban automatically.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Metzia 21b (Beraisa):</span> If one finds coins in a Beis ha'Keneses, Beis Medrash... he may keep them, because the owner despairs.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Me'ilah 5:6):</span> Me'ilah applies to things that grow from Hekdesh. If one was Makdish a field and it grew herbage, or a tree and it produced Peros, Me'ilah applies to. However, if one was Makdish an empty pit, wasteheap or dovecote, and it became full of water, manure or doves, since they do not grow from Hekdesh, Me'ilah does not apply to them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (79a DH v'Ein):</span> A Chatzer acquires like a Yad, and Hekdesh has no Yad.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashbam (DH Hachi):</span> Reshus of Hekdesh is not strong enough to acquire. Regarding a person, we learn that his Chatzer acquires for him from 'v'Im Himatzei Timatzei v'Yado.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ramban (79a v'Ha):</span> The Rashbam explains that Me'ilah does not apply to what is in them because Hekdesh has no Chatzer, for Chatzer works due to Yad and Hekdesh has no Yad. One could say that it acquires, but Me'ilah does not apply to what it acquires.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ketzos ha'Choshen (200:1 DH veha'Ramban):</span> The Ramban holds that Me'ilah applies to what a person was Makdish, but not to what Hekdesh acquires by itself. Tana'im (Zevachim 45a) argue about whether Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Nochrim, even though they are surely Hekdesh. All agree that there is no Me'ilah when no one was Makdish the Hekdesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nesivos ha'Mishpat (ibid. DH ul'Inyan Iy):</span> The Ramban learns from 'Kodshei Benei Yisrael' that Me'ilah does not apply to to Kodshei Nochrim (Zevachim 45a). Tosfos (45b DH Dumya) holds that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis of Nochrim, but all agree that there is no Me'ilah when no person was Makdish. We infer that the Ramban holds that there is a Yad to Hekdesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva Eiger (Me'ilah [5]):</span> Tana'im argue about whether Me'ilah applies to what grows from Hekdesh. The Ramban derives that all agree that there is no Me'ilah in what Hekdesh acquires if it does not grow from Hekdesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Ketzos ha'Choshen DH Emnam):</span> Shevuos 24b connotes that one can annul making an animal a Korban, unless it was a Bechor. According to the Ramban, we could have said that we discuss any Korban. After slaughter, the Azarah (a Chatzer of Hekdesh) acquires it for Hekdesh, and afterwards one cannot annul the Hekdesh, just like one cannot annul Hekdesh after the Gizbar received it! R. Betzalel Ashkenazi (Teshuvah 14, brought in Shach 255:6) says that one can annul Hekdesh only because speech can annul speech. After it came to the Gizbar's hand, Hekdesh acquired through Meshichah. Hekdesh is no weaker than a person. If a person acquired through Meshichah, the seller cannot retract. There is Me'ilah, for the Hekdesh was through a person! This seems to be a proof for Tosfos and the Rashbam.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Nesivos ha'Mishpat ibid. DH Gam):</span> Surely, to stop the Makdish from retracting, Hekdesh is like one who acquires for a creditor when this harms others. Zechiyah does not work in such a case (Gitin 11b). We also require Shlichus of the owner, and to say 'acquire for'. When it does not harm others, and Shlichus of the owner does not apply, surely Hekdesh has a Chatzer. The Ketzos should have asked better from the Shach, who says that after Meshichah of the Gizbar, one cannot annul Hekdesh. Likewise, once the Korban was given to Kohanim, who are Hashem's Shluchim, and they slaughtered it and did Zerikah (threw the blood), why can one annul? However, Tosfos (Krisos 13b DH Arba) says that one cannot annul after Shechitah and Zerikah. Birkas ha'Zevach asked from Shevuos 24b, which connotes that one can still annul. Really, the Gemara means that we do not discuss something that *sometimes* can be annulled. One can annul Hekdesh before Shechitah. We list only things that ccan never be annulled. In Krisos, it discusses things that can no longer be annulled, and excluded only Shevu'ah, which one can always annul.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (154:23):</span> The Agudah says that one who finds something in a Beis ha'Keneses acquires it. We do not say that Chatzer Beis ha'Keneses acquires for Hekdesh. This is because a Chatzer acquires like a Yad, and Hekdesh has no Yad.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ketzos ha'Choshen (200:1):</span> This is like Tosfos. We learn from Bava Basra 79a. The Rashbam (DH Hachi) explains that Reshus of Hekdesh is not strong enough to acquire. Regarding a person, we learn that his Chatzer acquires for him from 'v'Im Himatzei Timatzei v'Yado.' Similarly, Chatzer Beis ha'Keneses does not acquire for Hekdesh. The Ramban holds that Hekdesh acquires (just there is no Me'ilah). However, in Shekalim (7:2) we say that money found in Har ha'Bayis is Chulin. The Yerushalmi connotes that it is full Chulin. Why doesn't Hekdesh acquire through Chatzer? The Rosh (Bava Metzia 2:9), Nimukei Yosef (14a) and Magid Mishneh say that a Chatzer does not acquire what entered it before despair, for Chatzer is no better than Yad. One does not acquire what came to his hand b'Isur, even if the owner despaired afterwards. Even though people constantly check their wallets, he did not know when it fell. Surely this applies also to money found in a Beis ha'Keneses. However, other Rishonim answer that a Chatzer acquires only what is normal to come, for the owner intends only for this. The Rema (CM 268:3) holds like this. Regarding Hekdesh, without intent is like a person with intent (Bava Kama 20b). The Rishonim who hold that a Chatzer acquires (before despair, but) only what is normal to come there, like the Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 16:8) must hold like Tosfos and the Rashbam that Hekdesh has no Chatzer.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ketzos ha'Choshen:</span> The Agudah's equates Beis ha'Keneses to Hekdesh. I say that it is not Hekdesh, rather, it is like a joint Chatzer. The Rivash (205, brought in Beis Shmuel 30:9) says that one's four Amos acquire for him in a Beis ha'Keneses, for it is a joint Chatzer. A joint Chatzer acquires for the owners (CM 260:4). In Bava Metzia (21b), we say that one keeps coins that he finds in a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash, and the Hava Amina was that it refers to a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Medrash of Yisre'elim. Since the owners are people, we can say that the joint Chatzer does not acquire before despair,*or* it acquires only what is expected to come.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nesivos ha'Mishpat (ibid., DH u'Mah):</span> Even though a Beis ha'Keneses is like a joint Chatzer, the Agudah needed to say that Hekdesh has no Yad, since the congregation made the building Hekdesh for the needs of the Beis ha'Keneses, it is no worse than a Chatzer rented to Hekdesh. A tenant acquires with a rented Chatzer. The Gizbar would like to acquire for Hekdesh, and Hash-m is aware, therefore, the Agudah needed to say that the Beis ha'Keneses does not acquire because Hekdesh has no Yad.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE 'TAMEI' BLOOD OF A NOCHRI'S KORBAN</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the Halachah in the case of blood of a Korban which was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach even thought it had become Tamei. If this occurred with the blood of an individual's Korban, the Zerikah is valid, as long as it was done without knowledge that the blood was Tamei. If the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood, then the Zerikah is not valid.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Mezid) explains that the Gemara is not discussing the issue of whether or not the owner has fulfilled his obligation to bring a Korban, because, mid'Oraisa, the Tzitz atones for Zerikah with Tamei blood even when the Zerikah was done intentionally. The question is whether or not the Korban may be eaten. The Chachamim ruled that when the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood, the meat of the Korban may not be eaten, as a penalty.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and says that if the Korban was a public Korban, the meat may be eaten even if the Zerikah was intentionally done with Tamei blood.
</p><p>
If, however, the Korban was that of a Nochri, the Tzitz does not atone for its Zerikah, even to make the Korban itself valid. The Gemara gives various reasons for this, and it concludes with the verse quoted by Rav Ashi which describes this aspect of the Tzitz, 'l'Ratzon Lahem' -- 'for appeasement for them' (Shemos 28:38). This implies that the Tzitz is an appeasement for <i>them</i>, the Jewish people, and not for Nochrim.
</p><p>
Despite the dispute about the source of the Halachah, all of the opinions here clearly maintain that the Halachah is that Zerikah done with Tamei blood invalidates the Korban of a Nochri.
</p><p>
The Acharonim are bothered by the fact that this Halachah is not recorded by the <b>RAMBAM</b>. Why does the Rambam omit this Halachah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> answers that the Rambam maintains that the blood of Kodshim in general can never become Tamei. He bases this ruling on other sources. According to the Rambam, the Halachah that the Tzitz atones for Korbanos which became Tamei applies to the Kemitzah flour of a Minchah which became Tamei. Since a Nochri cannot bring a Korban Minchah, the Ritzuy ha'Tzitz is not relevant to a Nochri.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> asks that the Halachah still should be relevant to meat of a Korban of a Nochri which became Tamei before the Zerikah. In such a case, the Kohen would not be able to do the Zerikah, since there is no Korban for which to do the Zerikah, since the Korban has become Tamei. This is relevant even according to the Rambam, and therefore the question remains: why does the Rambam omit this Halachah?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> and <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ</b> explain that when the Gemara says that the Tzitz is not 'l'Ratzon' -- 'for appeasement' for the Nochri, it means that the part of the Korban which is normally the 'appeasement' of the Korban -- the blood -- is not subject to appeasement by the Tzitz <i>for the Nochri</i>. This means that if the blood becomes Tamei, the Korban has the status that it has before the Zerikah is done, and thus the limbs may not be placed on the Mizbe'ach. However, if the limbs of the Korban become Tamei, the Zerikah may be done, since the burning of the limbs would be valid b'Di'eved. Why would the burning be valid, if the meat is irrevocably Tamei? The Even ha'Azel explains that since there is no issue of the burning of the Eimurin being an <i>appeasement</i> for the Nochri (since the Haktaras Eimurin is not the main 'appeasement' of the Korban), the meat of the Korban is like any other Tamei limbs that were placed on the Mizbe'ach (which, b'Di'eved, are valid).
</p><p>
The Even ha'Azel addresses another interesting aspect of the Rambam's omission of this Halachah. The Rambam should record this Halachah because of another practical consequence: if the Zerikah is not valid, the Nochri must be informed that he must bring another Korban. The Even ha'Azel suggests that when a Nochri pledges to bring a Korban, his only obligation is that he must literally <i>bring</i> a Korban to the Beis ha'Mikdash, and not that it should necessarily <i>atone</i> for him. The Rambam therefore does not write that the Nochri must be informed, because the Nochri has no obligation to bring another Korban; he has already fulfilled his pledge. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE THAT AN 'EGLAH ARUFAH' IS 'ASURAH B'HANA'AH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara lists certain objects of Mitzvah which remain subject to the prohibition of Me'ilah, and are forbidden from benefit, even after the Mitzvah has been done with them and the Mitzvah is finished. One of these objects is the Eglah Arufah (the young calf which must be beheaded to atone for the murder of an intercity traveler whose murderer is unidentified). What is the source for the Gemara's statement that what is left of the Eglah Arufah is forbidden from benefit?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Eglah) quotes the verse, 'v'Arfu Sham' -- 'and they will behead it there' (Devarim 21:4). The word 'Sham' ('there') seems extra, because the same verse clearly states where the calf is to be taken. It must be that the verse is teaching that the calf should stay there, even after it is killed, since it is forbidden from benefit. Indeed, this is the source for this law as recorded by the Gemara in Kerisus (6a).
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Eglah) points out that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (29a) gives a different source for this law. The Gemara there teaches that the Torah's usage of the word 'Kaper' -- 'atone' (Devarim 21:8) after the calf is killed implies that the animal is forbidden from benefit even after it is killed. Tosfos asks, therefore, which verse is the primary source for this law, 'v'Arfu Sham' or 'Kaper'?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Eglah, and in more length in Kidushin 57a, DH Kaparah) answers that the teaching in Avodah Zarah of 'Kaper' applies when the animal is alive. Just as an animal of Kodshim is forbidden from benefit before it is slaughtered, the Eglah Arufah is forbidden from benefit when it is alive. However, one might have thought that when the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah is completed and the animal is dead, one is permitted to benefit from the animal. The verse therefore states 'v'Arfu Sham' to teach that it is forbidden from benefit after its death as well. The verse of 'v'Arfu Sham' alone would not have sufficed, because one might have thought that the animal becomes forbidden only once it is dead, but not when it is alive. This is why both verses, 'Kaper' and 'v'Arfu Sham,' are necessary.
</p><p>
The <b>AVODAH BERURAH</b> in Avodah Zarah (29b) points out that Rashi seems to disagree with Tosfos. According to Tosfos, two separate prohibitions forbid benefiting from the Eglah Arufah. The first prohibition forbids benefiting from the Eglah Arufah when it is alive, just as an animal of Kodshim is forbidden from benefit while it is alive. The second prohibition forbids benefiting from the remains of the Eglah Arufah after its death. Rashi in Sotah (47a, DH Kiprah), however, states that if the murderer is found after the Eglah Arufah has been killed, the Eglah Arufah remains forbidden from benefit, since 'Kaparah is written with regard to it (the Eglah Arufah) like Kodshim.' This implies that Rashi does not agree that the Halachah of Kaparah is applicable only before it is killed. Rashi understands that the Halachah of Kaparah applies even after it has been killed.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (57a, DH Kaparah) gives a different answer. He says that the primary source is 'v'Arfu Sham.' This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Chulin (11a) uses the word 'Kaper' for a different Derashah. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST ONE EXPLICITLY SAY THAT HE WRITES LISHMAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Sefer Torah: Lishmah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	27a (Reish Lakish):</span> The Beraisa is Machshir when he was silent. The Mishnah discusses when he said (that he intends Chutz li'Zmano).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	46b (Mishnah):</span> There are six intents in Korbanos: which Korban it is, whose Korban it is, l'Shem Hash-m, l'Shem the fire, l'Shem a smell, and to be pleasing;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	R. Yosi says, even if one had no intent (and slaughtered), it is Kosher. Chachamim enacted to do so, for it all depends on the intent of the one offering the Korban.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Metzia 44a (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</span> 'Al Kol Devar Pesha' obligates for intent like for action;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gitin 45b:</span> There was a Nochri in Tzidan who used to write Sefarim. R. Shimon ben Gamliel permitted buying from him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Shimon requires tanning the hide l'Shem Sefarim. Surely the writing must be Lishmah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rabah bar Shmuel and Rav Ashi):</span> R. Shimon permitted buying from a convert who reverted to being a Nochri because he feared for his life.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	54b:</span> A scribe said 'the Sefer Torah that I wrote for Ploni is Pasul because I did not write the occurrences of Hashem's name Lishmah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Ami:</span> If Ploni has the Sefer Torah, you are not believed to disqualify it, but you forfeit your wages through your admission. Since the names are not Lishmah, the Sefer is worthless.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why can't he overwrite the names with intention to sanctify them?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1:</span> R. Ami holds like Chachamim who argue with R. Yehudah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</span> If a scribe needed to write Hashem's name, but he thought that he needs to write 'Yehudah', and he omitted the 'Daled' (so he accidentally wrote Hashem's name), he overwrites the letters with intent to make them Kodesh;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	Chachamim say, this is not a nice writing of Hashem's name.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2:</span> R. Ami could even hold like R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah permits overwriting His name once, but not every place it occurs, for such a Sefer appears spotted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kidushin 41b:</span> Terumah can be separated through thought alone.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 1:15):</span> If one writes a Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah, and at the time he did not intend, and wrote an Azkarah Lo Lishmah, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Hilchos Sefer Torah 3,4):</span> R. Baruch was unsure whether one must say with his lips that he tans the leather l'Shem Sefer Torah or Tefilin, or if intent suffices. Regarding Pigul it says 'Lo Yeratzeh (some texts - Lo Yechashev '), and speech is required (Zevachim 27a). Terumah is taken without speech, through mere intent. Regarding Shlichus Yad, it says 'Al Kol Devar Pesha', and one who intends to make unauthorized use of the deposit is liable. Therefore, it is good to say at the beginning that he tans Lishmah. This suffices. Also when he begins to write a Sefer Torah, he says 'I write this l'Shem Kedushas Toras Moshe', and this suffices. However, when writing names of Hash-m he must think l'Shem Kedushas ha'Shem. Even though the entire Torah must be written Lishmah, writing Hashem's name is a higher level.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Menachos 2a DH Kol):</span> An example of a Minchah Lo Lishmah is when he said (about a Minchah in a Machavas) 'I do Kemitzah l'Shem Marcheshes.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 27a DH Ki):</span> We do not say that Stam, a Sefer Torah is considered to be Lishmah. Therefore, when a scribe begins to write, he says 'I write this l'Shem Toras Yisrael, and the Azkaros l'Shem Kedushah.' It seems that the scribe who said that he did not write the Azkaros Lishmah meant that he did not specify that he writes them Lishmah. If Stam were Kosher, he should have said that he wrote them Lo Lishmah. Also, if Stam were Kosher, a Nochri could write, just like he can circumcise. The Gemara connotes that a verse disqualifies a Nochri. Really, it is needed to disqualify a woman or child. In any case a Nochri is Pasul, because Stam it is not Lishmah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Hilchos Tzitzis 949):</span> The Ri asked why we need a verse to disqualify a Nochri from writing a Sefer Torah. It must be Lishmah (and he does not write Lishmah)! The scribe said that he did not write the Azkaros Lishmah, and this sufficed to disqualify the Sefer Torah. He did not need to specify that he wrote them Lo Lishmah, for Lishmah is required! We can say that the Tana (who needs a verse) does not require Lishmah. R. Elchanan answered that Stam, Torah is considered Lishmah. One cannot infer from the scribe. We say that a Get written Lo Lishmah is Pasul (we did not say that a Get not written Lishmah is Pasul), even though a Get must be written Lishmah! When something is not Stam Lishmah, such as a Get, one must say with his lips that he does it Lishmah. Likewise, when something is Stam Lishmah, such as a Minchah, it is Lo Lishmah only if he says so with his lips, like Rashi (Menachos 2a) says. Therefore, one who begins to write must say 'I write this Sefer Torah Lishmah.' Rashi holds that a Stam Sefer Torah is Lishmah. Why should it be Pasul? Presumably, it is written to read or learn from it. It is not worse than Kodshim, which require l'Shem six things, and even so if he did not explicitly say so, it is Kosher. However, surely he must explicitly say that he writes the Azkaros Lishmah. This is why in Gitin it mentions the Azkaros. According to the other Perush, we can say that he mentioned the Azkaros because he did not want to overtly say that he is evil. Regarding the Azkaros, he can say that he forgot to write them Lishmah. The scribe intended to write 'Yehudah' l'Shem Sefer Torah, and this is not good enough for Hashem's name.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 274:1):</span> When a scribe begins to write a Sefer Torah, he says 'I write this l'Shem Kedushas Sefer Torah.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Rabbeinu):</span> When a scribe begins to write, he says 'I write this l'Shem Kedushas Yisrael, and the Azkaros l'Shem Kedushah', for perhaps intent is not enough. The Tur, Semag, and Sefer ha'Terumah say so, and the Mordechai in the name of Ri of Orleans. Rashi holds that Stam suffices for the Sefer, for Stam he writes it to read or learn from it, but he agrees that one must explicitly say that he writes the Azkaros Lishmah. He proves this from the Halachah of a scribe who thought that he is writing Yehudah. This is not a proof. There it is Pasul because he intended to write Yehudah, which is not in that place in the Sefer. This is like intent to write a word that is not in the Sefer.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Be'er ha'Golah (1):</span> It seems that b'Di'eved, intent suffices, for the Rambam and Semag say that Pigul is through intent without speech, and the Ra'avad did not disagree.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (1):</span> Semag says that one should also say that the Azkaros are l'Shem Kedushah. This is proper, for perhaps he will forget afterwards to be Mekadesh the name in its place.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Birkei Yosef:</span> One who proofreads (and corrects) must also intend for Kedushas Sefer Torah. The declaration of the first scribe does not help for the second.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (1):</span> Gitin 45b connotes that Stam does not suffice.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (276:2):</span> Even though one said when he began to write a Sefer Torah that he writes l'Shem Kedushas Sefer Torah, every time he writes a name (of Hash-m) that may not be erased, he must say that he writes it l'Shem Kedushas ha'Shem. If he did not, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Af):</span> We conclude in Gitin 54b that it does not help to write over them. Even though the Rosh and Tur say 'one must intend for Kedushah', it seems that the Rosh requires that one say so with his lips.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 32:19):</span> When a scribe begins to write Tefilin, he says with his lips 'I write l'Shem Kedushas Tefilin.' In addition, every time he writes an Azkarah, he must say that he writes it l'Shem Kedushas 'Rosh says that when writing Azkaros, one must intend for Kedushas ha'Shem. It seems that this is imprecise. Really, he must say so with his lips, just like at the beginning of the writing. Why should it be different? Also the Tur wrote in Hilchos Sefer Torah that one must intend for Kedushas ha'Shem. He just cited the Rosh. Orchos Chayim says 'he must say with his lips that he intends Lishmah. If not, it cannot be fixed. Sefer ha'Terumah says that he must say so with his lips only at the beginning, but he must intend for every Azkarah. Also the Rambam says so.' This is astounding. The Rambam wrote like the Gemara. One cannot prove whether he holds that intent suffices! Also, Sefer ha'Terumah was unsure if intent suffices.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kosav):</span> Ri Askandri says that some say that one must say at the beginning of each Parshah that he writes Lishmah. The Poskim say that it suffices once, before writing all the Parshiyos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (92):</span> If one letter was written not l'Shem Tefilin, it is Pasul, and it does not help to write over it Lishmah. Letter of the law it suffices once, before writing all the Parshiyos. However, it is better to say so at the beginning of each Parshah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (93):</span> Likewise, one must say so before fixing isolated letters. Since the Tefilin are Pasul without this, it must be Lishmah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (95):</span> B'Di'eved, if he merely thought, it does not help.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (96):</span> Some say that it is good to say at the beginning also that all the Azkaros are l'Shem Kedushas ha'Shem, for perhaps he will forget to be Mekadesh them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH bi'Tchilas):</span> The Taz (in YD) said that b'Di'eved, one may rely on what he said at the beginning. Why did he omit that Lechem Chamudos disagrees? The Birkei Yosef is stringent b'Di'eved! One may rely on the Taz if he is unsure whether he was Mekadesh an Azkarah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (97):</span> If he writes two Azkaros without anything in the middle, it suffices to be Mekadesh once.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rema:</span> Some say that it suffices to intend that the Azkaros are Lishmah, since he said with his lips at the beginning. One can be lenient b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (57):</span> The Gemara connotes that Hashem's name is improper when he intended to write something else (Yehudah), but had he intended for the correct word (even without special intent for His name), it would be Kosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Radvaz (1:154, cited in R. Akiva Eiger):</span> The Rishonim concluded that every matter of Kedushah, such as a Sefer Torah, requires speech. This is because Kedushah does not take effect through thought. It takes effect only through speech, which makes a great impact. Get has Kedushah because it is called a Sefer and it says 'like the law of Moshe and Yisrael.' One must say that he writes Megilas Sotah Lishmah, in order that Hashem's name erased into the water will work properly. B'Di'eved, I admit that intent without speech suffices for all these matters.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (92):</span> It he did not even intend for Kedushah of an Azkarah, even b'Di'eved he was not Yotzei.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY IS THE THOUGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE KORBAN INSIGNIFICANT?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara (47a) records an argument among the Tana'im about whether thoughts of Pigul of the owner of the Korban disqualify the Korban, even though the Kohen who performs the Avodah has the proper intentions. The Gemara clearly follows the opinion implied by the Mishnah (46b), that only the Kohen's thoughts are significant with regard to Pigul.
</p><p>
The <b>EIN YITZCHAK</b> (YD 19) asks that this conclusion seems problematic in light of the question asked by the Gemara in Nedarim (35b). The Gemara there inquires whether the Kohanim who offer Korbanos on behalf of the people are considered the messengers of the people or the messengers of Hash-m. If, as the Gemara here maintains, the thoughts of the owner of the Korban are insignificant compared to the thoughts of the Kohen, then clearly the Kohanim are the agents of Hash-m. If they would be the agents of the people, then the thoughts of the owner should be primary, and the thoughts of the agent (the Kohen) should be subordinate to the thoughts of the owner.
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> answers as follows. The Gemara in Kidushin (59a) discusses a case in which a man gives money to a woman and says that she should be betrothed to him with this money after thirty days. If, after she accepts the money of Kidushin, the woman changes her mind within thirty days, does the Kidushin still take effect? Rebbi Yochanan says that she may change her mind and the Kidushin does not take effect, while Reish Lakish says that she may not change her mind and the Kidushin takes effect. The Gemara there assumes that the argument is based on whether one's words can annul one's earlier words. Rebbi Yochanan says that they can, and Reish Lakish says that they cannot. The Gemara questions Reish Lakish's opinion from the law that when a person sends an agent to separate Terumah from his produce, the owner can cancel the Shelichus before the Terumah is separated. Accordingly, the woman also should be able to annul the Kidushin before it takes effect. The Gemara answers that in the case of Kidushin, the words must be powerful enough not only to annul words, but to annul the act of giving of the money for the Kidushin. Although the Kidushin did not yet take effect, the act of giving money for Kidushin was done, and it is not possible to annul that act with mere words.
</p><p>
Similarly, in the case of an owner who sends a Korban to be offered by a Kohen, the Kohen clearly is not acting as a Shali'ach for the owner. Once the owner gives over the Korban to the Kohen, and the Kohen starts the process of Shechitah, the mere thought of the owner no longer can affect the Shelichus, even if the Kohen originally was a messenger of the owner. This explains why the Gemara in Nedarim does not answer its question from the Mishnah here. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ENACTMENT TO RECITE 'EIZEHU MEKOMAN' EVERY DAY</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (OC 50:1) writes that the Chachamim enacted that one should recite the Parshah of the Korban Tamid, the Perek of Eizehu Mekoman, and the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael every day before the morning prayers. This enactment was made so that everyone would learn words of Torah, Mishnah, and Gemara every day. (The Shulchan Aruch explains that the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael constitutes Gemara.) The Shulchan Aruch does not explain why the Chachamim enacted that the specific Perek of Eizehu Mekoman be recited. What is special about this Perek?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TUR</b> (OC 50) explains that this enactment is based on the verse, 'uv'Chol Makom Muktar u'Mugash l'Shmi' -- 'And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure Minchah offering' (Malachi 1:11). The Gemara in Menachos (110a) explains that this verse clearly does not mean literally that people were sacrificing Korbanos 'in every place,' since Korbanos may be offered only in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rather, the verse refers to Talmidei Chachamim, and it means that whenever a person learns the laws of Korbanos, in any time and any place, it is considered as if he offers Korbanos to Hash-m. This is why the Perek of Eizehu Mekoman is said after the recitation of the daily Avodah of the Parshas ha'Tamid and the Seder ha'Yom. It is considered as though the Jewish people continue to bring Korbanos with their learning. (See also <b>MISHNAH BERURAH</b> OC 50:2.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (OC 50) writes in the name of the <b>RE'AH</b> that this Perek was chosen because it contains no arguments, and it was taught to Moshe Rabeinu in these words at Har Sinai. The <b>KAF HA'CHAIM</b> points out that the Beis Yosef does not mean that nothing in this Perek is subject to dispute; one Mishnah states that the Korban Pesach is eaten only until midnight, and we know that this is the subject of dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (Berachos 9a). The Beis Yosef means that there is no explicitly recorded argument in the entire Perek.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TAZ</b> explains that there is an allusion in this Perek to the fact that the entire Torah she'Ba'al Peh was given to Moshe Rabeinu at Har Sinai. There are 344 words in the Perek, which, 'Im ha'Kolel,' equals the Gematriya of 'Moshe.' (A rule of Gematriya is 'Im ha'Kolel': an additional 1 may be added to the combined numerical value of a word's letters. This extra 1 corresponds to the word as a whole.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) DOES ONE NEED TO PERFORM 'SHECHITAH' WITH A KNIFE?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that Kodshei Kodashim are slaughtered in the north of the Azarah. The Mishnah does not mention that one must slaughter the Korban with a Kli Shares, such as a knife. This is in contrast to the Mishnah's next statement, 'and the accepting of the blood is done <i>with a Kli Shares</i> in the north.'
</p><p>
Does the Mishnah intentionally omit that the Korban must be slaughtered with a Kli Shares to teach that no specific instrument is needed for the Shechitah of Kodshim?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Eizehu) quotes <b>RABEINU EFRAIM</b> who indeed infers from the Mishnah that a Kli Shares is not necessary for the slaughter of Shechitah. This is supported by the Gemara in Chulin (3a) which states that a person may slaughter an animal with a sharpened reed or stalk. If a Kli Shares would be required for Shechitah, then a reed or stalk certainly would not be allowed, since a Kli Shares cannot be made out of wood (or reeds or stalks).
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos, however, has difficulty with Rabeinu Efraim's view. The Gemara later (97b) derives from the verse, 'va'Yikach Es ha'Ma'acheles li'Shechot' -- 'and he took the knife to slaughter' (Bereishis 22:10), that one must use a Kli Shares for the Shechitah of a Korban Olah. The Gemara there learns that <i>all</i> Korbanos must be slaughtered with a Kli Shares from this teaching. Moreover, the Gemara in Sotah (14b) implies that the knife used for the Shechitah is Mekadesh the blood of the Korban, which is possible only if the knife is a Kli Shares. Tosfos therefore concludes that Kodshim must be slaughtered with a Kli Shares.
</p><p>
How does Tosfos refute the proof of Rabeinu Efraim from the Gemara in Chulin (3a)? Tosfos explains that the Gemara in Chulin follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that one may make a Kli Shares from wood (as long as he makes the object into a Kli).
</p><p>
According to Tosfos, why does the Mishnah omit the requirement that the Shechitah of Kodshim must be done with a Kli Shares? Tosfos explains that there is no need for the Mishnah to teach that the Shechitah must be done with a Kli Shares. It is obvious that every part of the Avodah must be done with a Kli Shares. When the Mishnah says that the Kabalas ha'Dam is done with a Kli Shares in the north, it does not mean to teach that the Kabalas ha'Dam must be done with a Kli Shares, because, again, that is obvious. Rather, the Mishnah means that when the Kabalas ha'Dam is done, the Kli Shares which receives the blood must be in the north. The animal and flow of blood cannot be in the north while the Kli which receives it is in the south.
</p><p>
However, Tosfos mentions that the Tosefta in Menachos seems to support the opinion of Rabeinu Efraim. The Tosefta says that the Kemitzah of a Minchah is more stringent than the Shechitah of a Korban, since the Kemitzah of a Minchah requires a Kli, but the Shechitah of a Korban does not require a Kli. How can the Tosefta be reconciled with the Gemara that clearly requires that Shechitah be done with a Kli? Tosfos answers that the Tosefta does not mean that a Kli is not necessary for Shechitah, but rather that no <i>standard</i> type of Kli is necessary. Although there is a rule that substandard objects should not be used in the Beis ha'Mikdash (as derived Malachi 1:8), the Tosefta is teaching that this Halachah does not apply to the item used to perform the Shechitah. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DOES HOTZA'AH DEPEND ON OTHERS? <span class='indexentry'>[Shabbos :Hotza'ah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</span> The rule is, if Reuven stored away something that most people would not store away, and Shimon took it from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos, he is liable due to Reuven's intent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 58a (Beraisa):</span> One may go out with a bell on his garment, but not on his neck.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Presumably, a bell on his neck is forbidden because we are concerned lest it fall and he will carry it. The same applies to a bell on his garment!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> It is woven. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua permits anything woven.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	66b (Mishnah):</span> Boys may go out with Kesharim. Princes may go out with bells. Everyone is permitted; Chachamim discussed the usual cases.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	If a son longs for his father, we tie a strap from the father's right shoe on the son's left hand.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	67a	(R. Oshaya):</span> The Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who says that Bnei Yisrael are princes.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> All agree with our Mishnah. The bells are woven into the garment.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	128a (Abaye):</span> The following Tana'im hold that all of Bnei Yisrael are princes - R. Shimon ben Gamliel, R. Shimon, R. Yishmael and R. Akiva.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> Princes may rub rose oil on their wounds on Shabbos, for they anoint themselves with it even when they have no wound;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	R. Shimon says, all Bnei Yisrael are princes.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	139b (R. Avin bar Rav Huna):</span> One may cloak himself in a canopy and walk in Reshus ha'Rabim, without concern for the straps (for hanging it. They are not considered a load.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Rav Huna taught that if one walks in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with Tzitzis that do not fulfill the Mitzvah, he is Chayav Chatas. Why is this different?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Tzitzis are important. They are not Batul to the garment. Straps are Batul to the Kilah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Shabbos 30b and 6:19):</span> Our Mishnah discusses a bell woven into the garment. All agree to this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 19:18):</span> One may go out with a bell woven into his garment.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (4):</span> Some put an iron key in a belt. Maharam forbids. This is unlike bells. We permit them only if they are woven. Even if the key were considered woven, we permit only bells, which were on all garments for decoration. Even if a key were woven, perhaps it is a load. Perhaps the belt is Batel tot the key! If it were permitted, why did Chachamim need to seek Heterim through a silver key?</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 301:23):</span> Children may go out with Zagim (small bells) woven into their garments.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Bnei):</span> The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon, for we established him to be part of a Shitah (Tana'im who hold similarly.) Our Mishnah discusses a bell woven into the garment. Even the one who established the Mishnah like R. Shimon agrees that all permit if it is woven.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (14):</span> We do not decree lest a man take something off to show it to others. Rather, the concern is lest people laugh at him, for it seems like haughtiness, and he will take it off and carry it. Here we discuss a minor. Even if he carries it, it is not an Isur! We decree lest Bnei Melachim constantly mock him, and surely his father will hear and (perhaps) come to take it. However, if Bnei Melachim would not mock him, even if it would snap we would not be concerned lest his father take it. It is not common that his father would be there at the time it snaps.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (79):</span> We are not concerned lest it snap and he will carry it. Even if it is made of gold, which is normal only for princes, we are not concerned lest people laugh at him and he will take off the bell and carry it, since it is woven.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</span> It is forbidden if they are not woven.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (80):</span> This is even if it is tied to the garment, and all the more so a bell (hanging) on his neck, lest it snap or fall and he will carry it. Tosfos forbids a gold bell even for minors who are not rich, if it is not woven, lest people mock him, and surely his father will hear and come to carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (125):</span> Even if it is on a chain and there is no concern lest it snap, it is forbidden lest people mock him and he will come to carry it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (126):</span> The Bach forbids even to princes. Tosfos Shabbos says that this is even if it is on a chain, for (it is forbidden for others, and) we do not distinguish.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rema:</span> Being connected to the garment helps only for something normally connected there. If one connected something unusual, it is forbidden.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rashba):</span> The Rashba (3:262) says that some villagers used to make a key at the end of a belt. They thought that it is Batel to the belt. I forbade, for anything not needed for the Keli and does not serve the Keli is not Batel to the Keli. It is as if he takes it out by itself, without the Keli. If one walks in Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos with Pasul Tzitzis, he is Chayav Chatas (Shabbos 139b). Tzitzis are important compared to the garment. They are not Batel to it. The same applies to a key in a belt that was not fixed for the belt's needs, rather, for its own sake. One who takes it out on Shabbos is liable.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (ibid.):</span> The same applies to a silver key. However, then we can permit, for it itself is an ornament. The Maharil (84, 157:13) says that people are lenient to consider a key fixed in a belt to be an ornament even if it is of iron. This is based on R. Peretz and the Agudah, even though Maharam denounces this, and meticulous people attach it through a silver peg.. The custom is to permit, for not everyone can afford to make it of silver. It seems that Maharam admits that of silver is a proper ornament.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (13):</span> In Saif 11, the Rema wrote that some permit (a key fixed in a belt, even if it is of iron or copper). This opinion holds that it is normal to be there, since it is like a belt. Here it is unlike a belt, so all agree that it is not Batel to the belt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (81):</span> In those days, it was normal to have a bell in the garment. Therefore, we permit if it is woven. We did not decree due to one that is not woven. Since it beautifies the garment, we do not force him to remove it and be disgraced.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (82):</span> If it is only attached, we decreed due to one that is not attached. The Mordechai says that perhaps it is a load and one is liable for carrying it. It is not Batel to the garment, for it is not normal. This is like the Rashba cited in the Beis Yosef.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (ibid.):</span> The kingdom decreed that every Yisrael wear green bands on his garment. One may wear it even if it is not sewn in, and it is just slightly connected.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (83):</span> Since it is normally to go out with it during the week, it is considered a garment. There is no concern lest he remove it and carry it, for he fears the kingdom. There is no concern lest it snap and he carry it, for it is not important like bells.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (ibid.):</span> One may go out with a handkerchief if it is connected to the garment.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (14):</span> Shiltei ha'Giborim says in the name of Semag that even though the handkerchief is not a garment or ornament, since it is not important, it is Batel to the garment. The Bach says that this is only if it is sewn to the garment. Those who connect it to the belt through a knot that may not be untied on Shabbos do a full Isur. The belt is Batel to the handkerchief! There is no Heter to make the handkerchief like a belt, for he already has a belt. Rather, he ties the end of the handkerchief in the end of the belt in a temporary knot, and it is like a long belt. He girds himself with it as long as he goes in the street.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (34):</span> It must be sewn with two stitches. Tying does not help. Why is this different than green bands, which need be only slightly attached? Those are more Batel to the garment. The Bach and Shiltei ha'Giborim hold that when it is attached to a garment, it is Batel to the garment, but it cannot be Batel to a belt. Similarly, one may go out with Kefoni sewn in back, but not with a rag tied to strings of the hat to clean his eyes.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (84):</span> It must be sewn well, or at least witrh two stitches. Then, it is like something woven. Zichru Toras Moshe and Mateh Asher say that nowadays it is not normal to sew a handkerchief into a garment, so it is not Batel to it, and it is Asur. Some say that since it is not important, it is Batel to the garment when it is sewn in. Some question the Taz' Heter of a temporary knot. It is good to tie it to the end of the belt with a permanent knot before Shabbos, and then it is like a long belt that he wears on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xvi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (130):</span> The Taz permits only if the entire handkerchief is used to gird himself, but not if part of it hangs down. R. Zalman says that the text of the Taz should say that he ties it with a permanent knot. Mishbetzos Zahav (14) says that it can be temporary, for he makes a long belt. The handkerchief need not be Batel to the belt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xvii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (85):</span> It helps to tie it only to a garment, but not to a belt, unless it is tied to the end of the belt and he girds himself with it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xviii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (131):</span> Some Bochurim tie a handkerchief around their legs, and think that this is like a garter belt. This is forbidden. Perhaps it is better if the handkerchief is long and thin, like a garter belt. It is better that they be Shogeg than Mezid.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (132):</span> Some wrap a handkerchief around their neck. Where this is not the custom, it is not considered Derech Malbush (wearing). However, sometimes people do so due to the cold, so perhaps we need not protest if it is Derech Malbush. If they wrap it once and the ends hang down, this is totally Asur. They will not heed us; it is better that they be Shogeg. In any case one should tell them to wrap it around the neck.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) IS THERE A MINIMUM VALUE FOR A KORBAN CHATAS?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara teaches that the verse which requires that an Asham Me'ilos be worth at least two Sela'im (which applies to an Asham Taluy as well) is not extended to other Korbanos in general. The Torah needs to teach specifically that an Asham Taluy must be worth at least two Sela'im, because had the Torah not taught this, one would have applied a simple Kal va'Chomer: If a Chatas, which is brought to atone for a sin that was definitely committed (inadvertently), may be worth just a Bas Danka (which, <b>RASHI</b> explains, is one sixth of a Dinar), then certainly an Asham Taluy, which is brought to atone for a <i>doubtful</i> sin may be worth a Bas Danka. The Torah therefore needs to teach that an Asham Taluy must be more expensive than a Chatas. (The <b>RAMBAN</b> on the verse comments that the Torah is teaching that a person should be serious about the possibility that he sinned, and not think that his doubtful sin needs no Korban.)
</p><p>
When the Gemara says that a Chatas must be worth one sixth of a Dinar, does this mean that it literally must be worth at least one sixth of a Dinar, or is this just a way of illustrating that a Chatas may be bought for any amount of money, even less than one sixth of a Dinar?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Danka) writes that the amount of one sixth of a Dinar is not literal. The Gemara means that a Chatas has no minimum value. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Chatas) cites support for Rashi's position from the Gemara in Kerisus (27a) which asks that a Chatas <i>should</i> have a minimum value; the Gemara's question clearly implies that a Chatas has no minimum value. Tosfos points out that a different Gemara in Kerisus (10b) implies that a Chatas must be worth at least a Sela. However, Tosfos concludes that the Gemara there is expressing merely a 'Mitzvah Min ha'Muvchar' (the choicest way of performing the Mitzvah).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (107b, DH Keves) concludes that the Gemara in Kerisus is teaching merely what generous people should give for their Chatas; the Torah gives no actual minimum value for the Chatas. One who is not generous may bring a Chatas worth even a sixth of a Dinar. Tosfos agrees that if the price of sheep decreases significantly, then even a generous person may bring an animal worth less than a Danka, l'Chatchilah, as long as the animal is robust and healthy.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kerisus (10b, DH Michlal) gives a slightly different explanation. Tosfos there says that the amount of a Sela is the amount which the Rabanan institute that a person should spend on a Chatas l'Chatchilah. Tosfos in Bava Basra (166b, DH Riv'asayim) writes that this is based on the verse which describes one's Korban as 'Mivchar Nidreichem' -- 'the choicest of your pledges' (Devarim 12:11). This phrase teaches that a person should always choose the 'Meyuchad sheb'Edro' -- 'the choicest of the flock' for his Korban. The Chachamim assessed that the choicest sheep normally costs a Sela. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN DO BAL YERA'EH AND BAL YIMATZEI TAKE EFFECT? <span class='indexentry'>[Chametz: Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> R. Akiva holds that a Hekesh overrides a Gezerah Shavah. Chachamim hold oppositely.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> No, all agree that a Hekesh is stronger. Chachamim say that the former Parshah teaches to the latter.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gitin 41b (Beraisa - Rebbi):</span> If one freed half of his slave, the slave becomes half-free;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	Chachamim say, he remains a full slave.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rabah):</span> They argue about a Get of (half) freedom. Rebbi learns from a Hekesh equating a Get of freedom to redemption money, which can make partial freedom. Chachamim learn from a Gezeirah Shavah from divorce. Just like a woman cannot be half-divorced, a slave cannot be half-freed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> Rebbi and Chachamim argue about whether it is better to learn from a Hekesh or a Gezeirah Shavah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> No. All agree that usually, a Gezeirah Shavah is better. Here, money cannot divorce, so we do not learn from divorce that a Get of freedom cannot work half-way.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 4b - Question:</span> All agree that Chametz is forbidden after six hours on Erev Pesach. What is the source of this?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Abaye) Contradiction:</span> It says 'Shiv'as Yomim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem' and it says 'Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu Se'or mi'Bateichem'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Resolution:</span> We must say that 'Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon' refers to the 14th (part of it is forbidden).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	We do not need 'Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon' to obligate Bi'ur (destroying Chametz) on the night of the 15th and forbid the nights. Bi'ur Se'or is equated to eating Chametz - 'Shiv'as Yomim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem Ki Kol Ochel Machmetzes v'Nichresah', and eating Chametz is equated to eating Matzah ('Kol Machmetzes Lo Sochelu b'Chol Moshvoseichem Tochlu Matzos'), which applies at night.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Kama 29b (R. Elazar):</span> One does not own Chametz from noon of Erev Pesach and onwards, but the Torah obligates him for it as if he owned it.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 3:7):</span> After after six hours on Erev Pesach one cannot be Mevatel Chametz, for it is not in his Reshus.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (8):</span> If one was not Mevatel Chametz before six hours, and after six hours he found Chametz that he was thinking about, and it was in his heart but he forgot at the time of Bi'ur and was not Meva'er it, he transgressed Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei because he did not do Bi'ur or Bitul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> Perhaps he holds that he transgresses Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei from six hours. This is wrong. It says 'seven days'!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Ra'avad should have learned from the Rambam's introduction to Hilchos Chametz, in which he lists the Mitzvos. He explicitly says that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei apply seven days. On the 14th is only the Mitzvah of Tashbisu (Bi'ur). Here the Rambam means that since Bitul does not work after six hours, even if he did Bitul then, since he did not do Bi'ur, he transgresses Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei when Pesach comes.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Noda bi'Yehudah (1 OC 20):</span> Many Rishonim say that one does not transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei until night. Almost all Acharonim say that this is obvious. I disagree with them, and with the Magid Mishneh. If the Rambam holds that one does not transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei until night, why did he mention that he found the Chametz after six hours? He already said that Bitul does not help then! Surely, it was to teach that one transgresses Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei after six hours! Also, why didn't the Ra'avad express astonishment at the Rambam (like he always does) for ruling unlike the verse without any support? I will explain this, and answer Tosfos' (28b DH Im) question, why R. Shimon needs a verse to teach that the Isur to eat Chametz is only at night.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Noda bi'Yehudah (ibid.):</span> A Gezeirah Shavah 'Se'or-Se'or' teaches about accepting deposits from Nochrim (Pesachim 5b). The Gezeirah Shavah also applies to the verse 'Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu Se'or.' If not, what is the source to permit accepting a deposit without Acharayos? He should transgress Tashbisu! Rather, we learn Tashbisu from Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei. We say that Bal Yera'eh is Nitak to (fixed through) the Aseh of Tashbisu (Pesachim 95a). All agree that 'ba'Yom ha'Rishon Tashbisu' refers to Erev Pesach! We must say that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that it applies also during Pesach. (Hagahah - the end of the verse 'Ad Yom ha'Shvi'i' obligates the entire Pesach! Indeed, the Rambam holds that Tashbisu is only on Erev Pesach, and he holds that Bal Yera'eh is not Nitak l'Aseh.) We learn the Gezeirah Shavah also in the other direction, that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei apply after six hours, just like Tashbisu. (Hagahah - a Hekesh is stronger than a Gezeirah Shavah! We must say that the Hekesh is only to eating Chametz when the punishment is Kares, i.e. during Pesach, but not on Erev Pesach.) However, Tosfos (Zevachim 48a DH d'Kulei) concluded that a Hekesh is always stronger than a Gezeirah Shavah. However, here it is not clear that the Isur to eat Chametz begins only at night, therefore we can fulfill both the Gezeirah Shavah (to teach that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei apply from six hours) and the Hekesh (to teach that the Lav to eat Chametz is from six hours). R. Shimon needs a verse to teach that the Isur to eat Matzah is only at night, for if not he would learn from Bal Yera'eh that it is from six hours. R. Yehudah holds that the Isur to eat Chametz is from six hours. If so, the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that also Bal Yera'eh is from six hours, for it does not contradict the Hekesh to eating Chametz. The Rambam holds that even though the Halachah follows R. Shimon (who permits Chametz that a Yisrael owned during Pesach) after Pesach, regarding Erev Pesach, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon (this is the general rule). The Ra'avad holds that just like the Halachah follows R. Shimon after Pesach, it follows him on Erev Pesach. There is no Diyuk from the Rambam's list of Mitzvos, for he does not list Mitzvos derived through Drashos, only what is explicit in the Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> The first Mitzvah he lists is the Isur to eat Chametz from after six hours on Erev Pesach, which is learned from a Drashah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Nedarim 86b DH Chametz):</span> If Reuven borrowed from a Nochri and made his Chametz an Apotiki (collateral from which the loan will be collected) and six hours on Erev Pesach came, Reuven transgresses Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei. The Isur Chametz uproots the Nochri's lien. Reuven must do Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Bava Kama 29b DH mi'Shesh):</span> The Torah considers it as if Chametz is in one's Reshus to transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Zevachim 48a DH d'Kulei):</span> Here we say that all agree that a Hekesh is stronger than a Gezeirah Shavah. In Gitin, we say oppositely! Here we mean that it is better to learn the Gezeirah Shavah only partially, than to totally nullify the Hekesh. There, in any case the Hekesh teaches other matters. Also, there we know that a Get can free a slave only from the Gezeirah Shavah to divorce, so it is better to learn from a Gezeirah Shavah to divorce, than from a Hekesh to freedom through money.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM AND ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 443:1):</span> Chametz is Asur b'Hana'ah from after six hours on Erev Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (1):</span> The Isur is mid'Oraisa. This refers to Tashbisu. He does not transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei until night.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'agas Aryeh (84):</span> Since we learn Tashbisu from a Gezeirah Shavah 'Se'or-Se'or' from Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, we should also learn in the other direction to obligate Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei from after six hours on Erev Pesach!  We do not, for Hashbasas Se'or (i.e. Bal Yimatzei) is Hukash to eating Chametz, and eating Chametz is Hukash to eating Matzah, which is at night. A Hekesh is stronger than a Gezeirah Shavah (Gitin 41a, Zevachim 48a). Even according to the opinion that a Gezeirah Shavah is stronger, here the Torah revealed 'seven days', but not after after six hours on Erev Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> What is his source from Gitin 41a that a Hekesh is stronger? Chachamim surely disagree, and perhaps also Rebbi! Also, perhaps all agree that a Gezeirah Shavah is stronger than learning a Hekesh from a Hekesh. In Kodshim, we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah, but not from Hekesh mi'Hekesh!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'arei Teshuvah (440:1):</span> If one accepted a deposit of Chametz from a Nochri with Acharayos (liability to pay if it will be lost), if he did not designate a separate place for it or make a wall to separate it from his Reshus, it is forbidden after Pesach. If he designated a place or made a wall after six hours, even though he transgressed Tashbisu, it is permitted after Pesach, for removing from one's Reshus exempts from Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei even during Pesach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shirei Korban (on Yerushalmi Pesachim 36b):</span> The Yerushalmi brings a teaching that says that Bal Yera'eh does not apply on Erev Pesach, and says 'this is like R. Meir, who holds that the Isur on Erev Pesach is mid'Rabanan.' Since the Bavli holds that all agree that the Isur on Erev Pesach is mid'Oraisa, it holds that Bal Yera'eh applies on Erev Pesach!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Tosfos ha'Rid on Yerushalmi 4a, Shevet ha'Levi 8:110:3):</span> The Yerushalmi says that these depend on the other, for it holds that the Hekesh applies to the entire Isur of eating Chametz. Tosfos (Pesachim 5a DH d'Ha) explains that the Bavli makes the Hekesh only regarding the Isur of Chametz punishable by Kares, i.e. during the seven days.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevet ha'Levi (ibid.):</span> To resolve the Sugyos, Tzafnas Pane'ach says that one who transgressed Bal Yera'eh during Pesach retroactively transgresses from Erev Pesach after six hours. This requires great investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chak Yakov (1):</span> Also Teshuvas Maharam (me'Rotenburg 162) says that Bal Yera'eh does not apply until night. However, Rashi holds that it applies on Erev Pesach after six hours.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'ar ha'Tziyon (2):</span> Also R. Chananel (Pesachim Sof 6b) holds that it applies on Erev Pesach after six hours, and Ba'al ha'Itur says so according to R. Yehudah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> Several Poskim agree that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei do not apply until night, since it says 'seven days.' In any case, every moment he has Chametz in his house he transgresses the Aseh of Tashbisu, which is from six hours.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Asruhu):</span> B'Di'eved, if one sold Chametz to a Nochri in the sixth hour, Mishbetzos Zahav (448:6) says that in any case after Pesach it is not considered Chametz that one owned during Pesach. Some say so even if he sold it after six hours, since some Poskim say that Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei do not apply until night. See Noda bi'Yehudah (2 OC 63, who says that even though we follow R. Yehudah regarding Erev Pesach, regarding after Pesach we follow R. Shimon, who says that  one did not transgress Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei on Erev Pesach).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (1):</span> Rashi holds that Bal Yera'eh applies on Erev Pesach, but we rule that it does not.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) DERIVING LAWS OF 'KORBAN HA'OF' FROM THE LAWS OF 'KORBAN BEHEMAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether the laws of a Korban ha'Of (bird offering) may be derived from the laws of a Korban Behemah (animal offering). At one point, the Gemara interjects that the laws of a Korban ha'Of cannot be derived from the laws of a Korban Behemah, since a Korban Behemah is unique in that it requires that Shechitah be done with a Kli (whereas a Korban ha'Of requires only Melikah with one's fingers).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah l'Ben Tzon) asks that the Gemara in Kidushin (36b) <i>does</i> derive a Halachah of Korban ha'Of from Korban Behemah. The Gemara there says that if, in the case of a Korban Behemah, the Torah does not require that a Kohen perform the Shechitah but it does require that a Kohen perform the Zerikah, then certainly, in the case of Korban ha'Of, for which the Torah <i>does</i> require that a Kohen perform the Melikah, a Kohen is required to perform the Haza'ah. Why does the Gemara there not respond that the laws of a Korban ha'Of cannot be derived from a Korban Behemah because of the unique law that a Korban Behemah requires Shechitah with a Kli?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) Tosfos answers that the teaching of the Gemara in Kidushin involves only one aspect of the Korban ha'Of and Korban Behemah; it is discussing certain Avodos that must be done by a Kohen. When only one aspect of the laws are being compared, a dissimilarity in a different aspect does not suffice to disrupt the comparison. In contrast, the Gemara here involves two aspects of the Korban ha'Of and Korban Behemah; it is discussing certain Avodos that must be done by a Kohen, and the Avodos which must be done in the north of the Azarah. Accordingly, a difference in any aspect of the Korbanos suffices to create a dissimilarity and disrupt the comparison between the two types of Korbanos.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Kidushin is deriving laws of Zerikah (and Haza'ah), not Shechitah. A dissimilarity between the two types of Korbanos in the laws of Shechitah is irrelevant. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE UNIQUE ASPECT OF AN 'ASHAM METZORA'</b></font>
<br>QUESTIONS: The Gemara states that the Torah writes an extra verse to teach that a Korban Asham Metzora, like a Chatas, requires Matan Damim, and requires that its Eimurin be burned on the Mizbe'ach. One might have thought that an Asham Metzora differs from other Korbanos, since it requires Zerikah on the right large toe, thumb, and ear of the Metzora, and thus perhaps the Zerikah distinguishes the laws of Asham Metzora from the laws of other Korbanos. The Torah therefore teaches that it indeed requires Haktaras Eimurin like other Korbanos.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lefi) quotes <b>RABEINU YAKOV</b> of Orleans who asks why the Gemara does not mention another significant difference between an Asham Metzora and other Ashamos. An Asham Metzora requires Nesachim, in contrast to other Ashamos. Why does the Gemara not mention this reason to distinguish between an Asham Metzora and other Korbanos?
</p><p>
ANSWER: <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that in order to distinguish something as 'different' in its category (in this case, Asham Metzora among Korbanos), it must have not only different aspects, but contradictory aspects, from other things in its class. The fact that an Asham Metzora (see <b>KEREN ORAH</b> at length in order to understand why Tosfos mentions Chatas here instead of Asham, although the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> implies that Tosfos actually wrote 'Asham' as well and just added the word 'Chatas') has Nesachim is an additional aspect of the Asham, but is not something that gives sufficient reason to assume that its other Halachos should different from those of an ordinary Asham. The difference which the Gemara mentions is that the Torah says that the blood of an ordinary Asham is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, but with regard to an Asham Metzora the Torah mentions only that its blood is sprinkled on the Metzora. This implies that it is <i>not</i> sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. The Torah therefore must teach that it indeed requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach as well. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> REDEEMING PEROS BOUGHT WITH KESEF MA'ASER <span class='indexentry'>[Ma'aser Sheni: redemption]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	48b Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari):</span> We find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar (we are more stringent about what is secondary than about what is primary). Peros of Ma'aser Sheni can be redeemed, but Peros bought with Kesef Ma'aser (money on which Peros Ma'aser Sheni were redeemed) cannot be redeemed!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If Peros bought with Kesef Ma'aser became Tamei, they may be redeemed;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	R. Yehudah says, they must be buried.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	(Inference:</span> Even Chachamim permit redemption only if they are Tamei (but not if they are Tahor and far away). Shitah Mekubetzes deletes this entire line from the text.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> That is not a stringency of Peros bought with Kesef Ma'aser. Rather, its Kedushah is too weak to transfer onto money! (We find that it is harder to redeem Peros worth less than a Perutah than Peros worth more than a Perutah.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 3:10):</span> Chachamim answered R. Yehudah 'if Ma'aser Sheni itself became Tamei, it can be redeemed. All the more so, Peros bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni can be redeemed if they became Tamei!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Yehudah:</span> You cannot learn from Ma'aser Sheni itself, for it can be redeemed far away (i.e. outside Yerushalayim), but Tahor Peros bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni cannot be redeemed far away!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 38a - Question (Reish Lakish):</span> May one be Yotzei with Matzah of Chalah bought with Kesef Ma'aser in Yerushalayim? (Matzah must be Kosher to eat anywhere.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	We do not ask according to Chachamim. Since it has a (potential) Heter everywhere (if it became Tamei), one is Yotzei with it just like with Chalah of Ma'aser itself. We ask according to R. Yehudah, who says that it must be buried.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	Do we say, *since* had it not been bought with Ma'aser money (rather, it itself was Ma'aser), and *since* had he not made it Chalah, it could have been permitted anywhere if it became Tamei and was redeemed, also now he is Yotzei with it? Or, perhaps we apply *since* only once!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rava):</span> Presumably, all Ma'aser is the same. (Just like one is Yotzei with Ma'aser Chulin, one is Yotzei with Chalah of what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Metzi'a 44b (Mishnah #1 - Beis Shamai):</span> If one has Sela'im of Ma'aser Sheni, he may not convert them to Dinarim;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Beis Hillel permit.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan or Reish Lakish):</span> They argue about converting silver Sela'im to gold Dinarim. Beis Shamai expound 'ha'Kesef' - the first money (on which Peros were redeemed) must be brought to Yerushalayim, not second money (on which the first money was redeemed);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	Beis Hillel hold that 'ha'Kesef' includes (permits) second money.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aser Sheni 7:1):</span> Peros bought with Kesef Ma'aser Sheni cannot be redeemed far away unless they became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah. Rather, the Peros themselves are brought to Yerushalayim and eaten there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> The Mishnah and Gemara connote that all agree that Tahor Peros bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni cannot be redeemed far away.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam rules like Chachamim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (2):</span> In this way, Peros bought with Ma'aser money are more stringent than Ma'aser Sheni itself. If they became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, they are redeemed and eaten in Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> We discuss a Vlad ha'Tum'ah mid'Rabanan. Since mid'Oraisa it is Tahor, it cannot be redeemed. Chachamim said that it can be redeemed and eaten outside when it became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah. When it became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, since it is Tamei mid'Rabanan, it is redeemed. Since mid'Oraisa it is Tahor and cannot be eaten outside, for it cannot be redeemed, therefore one must eat in Yerushalayim. This is clear from Pesachim 38a.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> When it became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah, no Kedushah remains. Therefore, one may redeem it and eat it outside Yerushalayim. If it became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, some Kedushah remains. Therefore, we redeem it and eat it in Yerushalayim. This is like Beis Hillel say in the Mishnah, that everything may be redeemed and eaten outside, except for what became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah inside. We find Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar in many places. Here there is a good reason. Ma'aser is redeemed in order to buy with its money meat, wine, and everything that one desires. However, if one bought Peros outside Yerushalayim in order to eat them in Yerushalayim, it is as if he bought in Yerushalayim. Redemption far from Yerushalayim when they are Tahor does not apply to them. This reason suffices even according to the opinion that does not make Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Shlomo Siriliyo (on Yerushalmi Ma'aser Sheni 3:6):</span> If one bought needs of a meal from Kesef Ma'aser, he showed that it is not hard for him to take the food to Yerushalayim, for (he knows that) he cannot eat it outside Yerushalayim, therefore they fined him that he must take it up and he cannot redeem it, for this would disgrace the Ma'aser Sheni. I explained that it is an Isur Torah (to redeem it).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Or Some'ach (and Ridvaz, Yerushalmi Pesachim 19a):</span> The Rambam's words allude to Zevachim 49a. His law about what became Tamei is from the Yerushalmi Ma'aser Sheni 3:5. Beis Shamai say that even what became Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah may not be eaten outside, lest people say that what is bought with Kesef Ma'aser may be eaten outside. R. Mani says that since (entering) the walls (of Yerushalayim) are Kolet (forbid redeeming the Peros outside), and buying (with Kesef Ma'aser) is Kolet, we apply the law of what entered to what is bought. This explains the difference between becoming Tamei through an Av ha'Tum'ah and a Vlad ha'Tum'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (38a DH R. Yehudah):</span> R. Yehudah expounds 'Kesef' - the first money, not the second money. Therefore, what is bought with Kesef Ma'aser cannot be redeemed when Tahor far away. Likewise, it cannot be redeemed Tamei inside, for both of these are learned from 'Lo Suchal Seiso.' Chachamim do not expound 'the first money, not the second money.' What is bought with Kesef Ma'aser can be redeemed when Tahor far away, or when Tamei inside. The Rashba asks from Zevachim, in which we say 'what is bought with Kesef Ma'aser can be redeemed only if it is Tamei, but not if it is Tahor.' This refers to far away, in which case Ma'aser itself can be redeemed. If not, this is not Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar! The Ri answered that mid'Rabanan it cannot be redeemed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tzlach (38a DH Mahu):</span> The Rambam wrote that one is Yotzei with Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim. He did not mention Chalah of Ma'aser Sheni. This is because he wrote (Hilchos Ma'aser Sheni 2:9) that Klitah of the walls is mid'Rabanan. Therefore, also Chalah of Ma'aser can be eaten anywhere (mid'Oraisa, through redemption). Reish Lakish asked according to the opinion that Klitah is mid'Oraisa. We must say that Klitah is mid'Rabanan even for Peros that grew in Yerushalayim. If not, the Rambam should have taught about Chalah of Ma'aser of those Peros! However, why didn't he teach about Chalah of what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser? This has no Heter even when Tahor outside Yerushalayim. Reish Lakish's question applies! Even though surely one is Yotzei with it, like Rabah answered, the Rambam should have explicitly said so. Perhaps since the Isur to redeem what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser is only mid'Rabanan, like Tosfos says, we cannot say 'it is not eaten everywhere.' Perhaps if one redeemed it outside, it may be eaten outside!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (Demai 3:6 DH v'Laku'ach):</span> Mid'Oraisa, what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser cannot be redeemed far away. We challenged R. Yehudah from this, because it is Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar, and answered that its Kedushah is too weak to transfer onto money. It is clear from the Sugya that all this is mid'Oraisa. This refers to what was bought in Yerushalayim. What was bought outside Yerushalayim may be redeemed mid'Oraisa. R. Meir (Demai 1:2) says that the Peros can be redeemed. If mid'Oraisa it cannot be redeemed, R. Meir would not be lenient about Demai (Peros bought from an ignoramus; it is considered Safek Ma'aser), for he eats Ma'aser Sheni outside Yerushalayim! The Ra'avad (4:2) explicitly says that it is redeemed even regarding Vadai Ma'aser. Mid'Rabanan it must be taken to Yerushalayim. Even though Klitah is mid'Rabanan, what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser cannot be redeemed because this is its final Mitzvah, or because its Kedushah is too weak to transfer onto money. What is bought outside Yerushalayim must be taken to Yerushalayim, so it has only Kedushas Damim, like Kesef Ma'aser, so mid'Oraisa it can be redeemed. This is why R. Meir is lenient about Demai. The Yerushalmi says that any case in which Demai can be redeemed l'Chatchilah, Vadai is redeemed b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (7):</span> It seems that the Rambam holds that if what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser was redeemed outside Yerushalayim, even b'Di'eved it is not redeemed. He says that if it became Tamei through a Vlad ha'Tum'ah, it is redeemed and eaten in Yerushalayim, because mid'Oraisa it is Tahor and it was not redeemed. If redemption works b'Di'eved, one may eat it outside! Rather, even though mid'Oraisa it is redeemed and mid'Rabanan it is Tamei, Chachamim were stringent not to eat it without redemption. However, they were not lenient to consider it Tamei (to say that the redemption works), even if it is only mid'Rabanan that cannot be redeemed. However, the Ra'avad (4:2) holds that b'Di'eved it is redeemed..</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (49a DH v'Harei):</span> Rashi explains that R. Yehudah makes Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar. He holds that what is bought with Kesef Ma'aser cannot be redeemed even if it is Tamei, whereas Tamei Ma'aser can be redeemed in Yerushalayim, for it says 'Lo Suchal Seiso' (you cannot eat it). The Sifri says that he expounds 'the first money, not the second money.' In Bava Metzi'a, we expound 'Kesef:' to permit converting Sela'im to gold Dinarim. We can distinguish. Here, the redemption was totally finished. If it was Tahor, it could not be redeemed. Some texts here say 'only if it is Tamei, but not if it is Tahor.' The question is from Chachamim, who never allow redeeming Tahor Peros bought with Ma'aser money, even outside of Yerushalayim. The Tosefta supports Rashi, for Chachamim challenge R. Yehudah for making Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar. According to Rashi, Chachamim do not hold that Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar. Ma'aser can be redeemed ouy in order to buy food in Yerushalayim. What was bought with Kesef Ma'aser outside Yerushalayim in order to eaten in Yerushalayim cannot be redeemed outside, just like one cannot redeem what is bought in Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY DOES THE GEMARA ASK ITS QUESTION A SECOND TIME, AND GIVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara asks that the requirement to bring the Yoseres and Kelayos of the Par He'elem Davar to the Mizbe'ach should have been written in the verses of the Par He'elem Davar itself. Why does this Halachah need to be derived from a different source?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Nichtevei b'Gufei) asks that this question was already asked and answered by the Gemara earlier (41b). The Gemara there asks, why is the requirement to bring the Yoseres and Kelayos of the Par He'elem Davar to the Mizbe'ach derived from the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and is not written in the verses of the Par He'elem Davar itself? The Gemara there answers that it is comparable to a king who loved one of his friends. When his friend sinned, the king reduced the amount of scorn that his friend deserved, due to their friendship. Similarly, when the Torah describes the laws of what must be done when the Jewish people sin, it does so as briefly as possible, even omitting some of the essential details if they can be derived from other places.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara here ask this question again, and give a different answer?
</p><p>
ANSWER: <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the primary reason why the Torah does not write this Halachah in the verses of the Par He'elem Davar is that it wants to teach, as the Gemara here says, that a law which is derived through a Hekesh cannot be applied to another topic through a second Hekesh.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara earlier (41b) not give this answer, but instead answers that the reason this law is not stated in the verses of the Par He'elem Davar is that Hash-m, out of his love for the Jewish people, sought to abbreviate the discussion of the Halachic process of the Par He'elem Davar?
</p><p>
Tosfos (as explained by the <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b>) explains that the rule that a law which is derived through a Hekesh cannot be applied to another topic through a second Hekesh is a general rule which the Torah could have taught using any subject in the Torah. The fact that the Hash-m specifically chose to teach this lesson by omitting some of the laws of the Par He'elem Davar was solely out of His love for the Jewish people. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE THAT A 'KORBAN OLAH' MUST BE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH OF THE AZARAH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara asks why the Torah needs to write explicitly that a Korban Olah must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah. It would have sufficed to write that a Chatas and an Asham must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah, and the law of an Olah could have been derived from there. The Gemara answers that the law of an Olah could not have been derived from Chatas and Asham, because a Chatas and Asham are brought for atonement, and an Olah is not.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo) asks, why does the Gemara not ask that the law that an Olah must be slaughtered in the north should be derived from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are not similar to an Olah, because they are brought only at set times, and thus the law of an Olah cannot be learned from the law of Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the point of the Gemara is that the law that Kodshei Kodashim must be slaughtered in the north of the Azarah could have been stated with regard to just one Korban, and the law of all other Korbanos of Kodshei Kodashim would have been derived from there. Although the law of an Olah could have been derived from Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, the law of a Chatas and an Asham could not have been derived from the Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, because a Chatas and an Asham are very different from an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. A Chatas must be a female animal, while an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur may be male. An Asham is never brought by the public, while an Olah and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are public offerings.
</p><p>
The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> quotes others who extend this line of reasoning and ask, why does the Torah not write the law that Kodshei Kodashim must be slaughtered in the north with regard to Chatas (or Asham) and with regard to Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, and from there (the combination of Chatas (or Asham) with Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur) the law of an Olah (and Asham or Chatas) would be derived?
</p><p>
1. The Tzon Kodashim says that this question is mistaken. The law of Olah could not be derived from a combination of Chatas (or Asham) with Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur, because both Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur have stringencies with Olah does not have. The laws of Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur are stringent in that those Korbanos are brought only at set times. The laws of Chatas (or Asham) are stringent in that the Chatas (or Asham) is brought to attain atonement.
</p><p>
2. The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> answers that the Gemara (Pesachim 77b) points out a clear difference between the laws of Olah and the laws of Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur. The difference is that an Olah has only one Achilah ('eating'), a reference to Achilas Mizbe'ach (when the limbs are placed on the Mizbe'ach to be burned). In contrast, Chatas (or Asham) and Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur have two 'Achilos' (that of the Mizbe'ach and that of the Kohanim). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST ONE FULFILL AN ACCEPTANCE IN HIS HEART TO GIVE TZEDAKAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Tzedakah: intent]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span>	Verses teach that Olah, Chatas and Asham are slaughtered in Tzafon. We could not learn any one from the others;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	We could not learn Olah from Chatas and Asham, for they are Mechaper (more than Olah)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	We could not learn Chatas from Olah and Asham, for they are males!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	We could not learn Asham from Olah and Chatas, for they are brought also for Korbanos Tzibur!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevu'os 26b (Shmuel):</span> It does not suffice to think the oath. He must say it - 'Levatei bi'Sfasayim.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor' refers to what he uttered (vows to bring Korbanos). 'Kol Nediv Lev' (donated towards the Mishkan) teaches (that it is a vow) even if he decided in his heart.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	'Kol Nediv Lev' teaches that intent suffices for Hekdesh. We do not learn oaths from Hekdesh, because Terumah and Kodshim are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad (both teach that deciding in the heart is enough). They do not teach about other laws. Alternatively, we do not learn laws of Chulin (oaths) from Kodshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kidushin 41b - Question:</span> Why did the Torah need to teach about Shelichus regarding divorce, Terumah and Korban Pesach?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We cannot learn Kodshim from the others, for they are like Chulin compared to Kodshim. We cannot learn divorce from Kodshim and Terumah, for they take effect through mere thought.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chagigah 10a (Mishnah):</span> Hataras Nedarim has no solid basis from verses.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yitzchak):</span> It has a source - 'Kol Nediv Libo.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (Rava):</span> Perhaps the verse comes to teach unlike Shmuel, who says that one must say (the oath). It obligates (a Neder) even if he did not say it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nedarim 7a - Question:</span> Do Yados (the start of a full expression) work for Tzedakah?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	I.e. if one said 'this coin is for Tzedakah', and said 'and this', does he mean 'and this one is also for Tzedakah', or 'and this one is for expenditures'? In Parshas Korbanos, 'b'Ficha' teaches about Tzedakah. Does the Hekesh teach even that Yados work also for Tzedakah, or only about Bal Te'acher?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Do Yados work for Hefker?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If you will say that Yados work for Tzedakah because a Hekesh totally equates them, is Hefker just like Tzedakah? Or, is Hefker different, for it is even for rich people?</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Bava Kama 18b):</span> Some learn from Bava Kama 36b that Aniyim acquire like regular people. There is no proof. Aniyim are no less than others. If one said about money in his Reshus 'it is for Aniyim', they acquire immediately, due to 'b'Ficha'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:1):</span> Tzedakah is included in Nedarim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (5):</span> Tzedakah is not like Hekdesh, from which one may not benefit.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Bava Kama 4:3):</span> If something is not in one's possession, he cannot give it to Hekdesh or Tzedakah. 'B'Ficha' does not apply. However, if he said 'when I get it, I will give it to Hekdesh or Tzedakah', he must fulfill his vow.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Ta'anis 1:13):</span> Rabbeinu Yehudah wrote in the name of R. Tam that if one accepted in his heart to fast, but did not say it, this is a proper acceptance. It is included in 'Nediv Lev', like it says in Shevu'os. Even though this does not help for oaths, presumably we learn all from vows from each other. We learn Tzedakah from 'Motza Sefasecha...', and intent suffices for it. The same applies to an acceptance to fast. The Gemara connotes unlike this (regarding fasting).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Teshuvah 13:1, brought in Tur CM 212):</span> If one bought land with intent to make it Hekdesh, but did not utter anything, this is Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents). Shmuel taught that this is not an oath. Intent makes Hekdesh, but we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim. Nowadays, we do not have Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis. All our Hekdesh is Chulin, i.e. Tzedakah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bedek ha'Bayis (YD 258 DH v'Chen):</span> Also the Rif, Tosfos, and Rosh in Bava Kama, and Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim) wrote like this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ateres Paz (1:2 YD 10 DH Emnam):</span> Teshuvas ha'Rosh wanted to learn Tzedakah from Hekdesh through a Binyan Av, like Shevu'os 26 wanted to learn Shevu'ah from Hekdesh. The Gemara rejected this, for we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, and similarly we do not learn Tzedakah from Kodshim. This is because Binyan Av is refuted if we find any stringency in the source not in the matter to be learned. This is clear from Zevachim 50a. R. Chananel (Shevu'os 26a) says that we do not learn from Chulin from Kodshim because Kodshim are more stringent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Bava Basra 659 and 491):</span> We say in Shevu'os and Kidushin that Kodshim take effect through mere thought. From here, a Gaon ruled that if one resolved in his heart to give Tzedakah, he is liable as if he said so with his mouth. Even though we say that we do not learn from Hekdesh and Terumah because they are Shnei Kesuvim, Rashi said in a Teshuvah that Tzedakah is considered like voluntary Korbanos. Therefore, it is as if he said. Rosh Hashanah 4a proves that Tzedakah is like voluntary Korbanos. A Beraisa teaches that Bal Te'acher applies to vows to give Hekdesh, Chatas... Tzedakah, Ma'aseros... Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah. Another Beraisa (6a) expounds 'Motza Sefasecha' teaches about a Mitzvas Aseh... 'B'Ficha' teaches that Bal Te'acher applies to Tzedakah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (YD 258:13):</span> If one thought in his heart to give something to Tzedakah, he must fulfill it. He need not say anything (to be obligated), just if he did say, we force him to fulfill. Some say that if he did not say it with his mouth, it is nothing. The first opinion is primary. See CM 212 (Sa'if 8, brought below).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (16, citing Chasam Sofer 243):</span> The Rema should say 'no speech is needed, but if he says that he intended, we force him to to fulfill his intent.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kasav ha'Rosh):</span> Maharik (161:5-7) says that Teshuvas ha'Rosh holds like the Ri, but R. Tam and R. Peretz hold that one becomes liable to give to Tzedakah through intent, even if he did not utter it. In Ta'anis, the Rosh holds like this, and the Maharik concludes like this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (35):</span> In Kidushin (28b), we say that *saying* (to give) to Hekdesh (is like handing over to a person). This teaches that we force one who said to fulfill it. One is liable for mere thought, but we do not know, so we cannot force him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (36):</span> The two opinions argue about whether Tzedakah is like Hekdesh. In CM (301:1,6) we say that Tzedakah is unlike Hekdesh. In YD 160:18 we forbid contracted interest regarding Tzedakah. (It is permitted regarding Hekdesh.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva Eiger (citing v'Shav ha'Kohen 20):</span> Here we discuss whether he is obligated to fulfill his vow. The first opinion, which obligates, is primary. In CM 212 we discuss whether we take the property from him if he admits that he intended. Therefore the Rema wrote 'one must be stringent', i.e. to rule that we do not force him, like any Safek.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (14):</span> V'Shav ha'Kohen (18) discusses whether one who intended in his heart can retract Toch Kedei Dibur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (15):</span> Das Esh (14) concluded that if one did not say anything, even though he intended to give something to Tzedakah, he is totally exempt, like any vow or oath. If he did not say with his lips, it is void. However, if he said that he will give to Tzedakah, but did not say what or how much, but he intended for a certain thing or amount, he must fulfill his intent. Similarly, (if he said that he will give,) if he intended for a particular Tzedakah, but gave to the Gabai Stam, it is as if he specified, and he cannot change it to another Tzedakah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (CM 212:8):</span> If one bought land with intent to make it Hekdesh, but did not utter anything, some say that since he resolved in his heart to give to Tzedakah, he must give. Some say that even though it says 'Kol Nediv Lev Olos', we do not learn Chulin from Kodshim, and nowadays, we do not have Hekdesh. Nowadays Hekdesh is not to Bedek ha'Bayis. It is only for Tzedakah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> One should be stringent like the first opinion.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (22):</span> Chagigah 10a proves that Kol Nediv Lev applies to every vow. What the Rema wrote in OC 553:1 and 608:3 is astounding. The Ran (Nedarim 7a DH ul'Inyan) says that according to the Ge'onim who say that whenever the Gemara says 'if you will say...', this is the Halachah, Tzedakah is like Hekdesh in every way, for a Hekesh totally equates both matters.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 553:1):</span> If after eating the meal before the fast of Tish'ah b'Av, if one explicitly accepted not to eat more today, he may not eat more.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Acceptance in the heart is not acceptance.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (2):</span> The Bach says that it is an acceptance. Therefore, it is good to stipulate that he does not accept the fast.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Kabalah):</span> The Rema is astounding. The Poskim discuss one who did not accept, but not one who accepted in his heart! Even though the Magid Mishneh said that he must say that he accepts, we hold that acceptance in the heart suffices (OC 562:6, YD 258, CM 212)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> If he did not accept to fast, just he decided that he will not eat more, he may eat more. It is better to explicitly say or resolve in his heart that he does not accept the fast until Bein ha'Shemashos.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (3):</span> There is no Tosefes (addition) to Tish'ah b'Av, therefore acceptance in his heart does not suffice, unlike Yom Kipur. An acceptance in his heart to fast for an entire day takes effect.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 562:6):</span> One who wants to fast should accept the fast in Minchah the day before. If he thought that in his heart that he accepts at the time of Minchah, this is acceptance.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (10):</span> It is best to accept in his heart during Tefilah, and to accept with his mouth after Tefilah before Elokai Netzor.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Im):</span> Only vows of fasting and Tzedakah are like Hekdesh, but not other vows. Some Poskim say that only Hekdesh takes effect in the heart.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (31):</span> The Taz says that a vow to fast is like Hekdesh, for through this his blood and Chelev are diminished, and this is like a Korban.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (15):</span> Some question whether acceptance in his heart suffices. L'Chatchilah, one should accept with his mouth. B'Di'eved, acceptance in his heart suffices to say Aneinu in Shome'a Tefilah, and to fulfill a (previous) vow to fast.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY A VERSE IS NEEDED TO TEACH THAT A 'KORBAN CHAGIGAH' MUST BE BROUGHT FROM 'CHULIN'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses whether certain Korbanos may be brought from Ma'aser instead of from Chulin. The Gemara derives from various sources that a Shelamim and a Todah may be brought from Ma'aser.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Im Al) asks the following question. The Gemara in Menachos (92a) teaches that just as a Chatas -- which one is obligated to bring -- may be brought only from Chulin, so, too, any Korban which one is obligated to bring may be brought only from Chulin. However, the Gemara in Chagigah (8a) derives from the word, '<i>Misas</i> Nidvas Yadcha' -- 'with the <i>tribute</i> of voluntary freewill offerings that you give' (Devarim 16:10) -- that a Korban Chagigah may be brought only from Chulin, not from other donations. Why is the Derashah in Chagigah necessary, if the Gemara in Menachos already derives from Chatas that all obligatory Korbanos (including the Korban Chagigah) must be brought from Chulin?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that there are situations in which at least part of the Korban Chagigah may be brought from Ma'aser, as the Gemara in Chagigah mentions. Since part of the Chagigah may be fulfilled with Ma'aser, the verse of 'Misas' is necessary to teach that one cannot fulfill his entire Chagigah obligation with Ma'aser.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that one might have thought that the Korban Chagigah is an exception to the rule that obligatory Korbanos must be brought from Chulin, because the verse (ibid.) says with regard to the Korban Chagigah, 'as Hash-m has blessed you,' implying that a Chagigah may be brought from Ma'aser. An explicit teaching ('Misas') is needed, therefore, to counter the implication of the verse.
</p><p>
(See the <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b>, who explains that the two answers of Tosfos are actually one answer, and that the two Derashos, in Menachos and Chagigah, complement each other.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY IS A VERSE NEEDED TO TEACH THAT LEFTOVER BLOOD IS POURED ON THE YESOD OF THE OUTER MIZBE'ACH?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the verse, 'El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah' -- 'to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach of the Olah' (Vayikra 4:7), that one must place the leftover blood on the Yesod of the outer Mizbe'ach, and not on the inner Mizbe'ach. The Gemara asks that perhaps the verse means merely that one <i>may</i> put the blood on the outer Mizbe'ach if he wants, but he also may put the blood on the inner Mizbe'ach. The Gemara answers that the verse continues with the words, 'Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed' -- 'which is at the opening to the Ohel Mo'ed.' These words seem extra; there is no need for the verse to identify the location of the outer Mizbe'ach as being near the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed. It must be that these extra words teach that one may put the leftover blood <i>only</i> on the outer Mizbe'ach, and not on the inner Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Asher) asks that this verse seems redundant. There is a principle of 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos' -- 'we may not pass over Mitzvos' (see Megilah 6b). This principle should dictate that the Kohen should spill out the leftover blood at the nearest place to where he is standing when he finishes the Zerikas ha'Dam. The nearest place is the western part of the Yesod. Why, then, is the verse of 'Asher Pesach Ohel Moed' necessary?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos' applies only when there are two Mitzvos to perform. The rule of 'Ein Ma'avirin' dictates which Mitzvah one should do first. In contrast, when there is only one Mitzvah to do, the rule of 'Ein Ma'avirin' does <i>not</i> dictate that the Mitzvah should be done in the closest place possible. Therefore, the verse is necessary.
</p><p>
Tosfos in Megilah (6b, DH Mistaver) rejects this answer based on the Gemara there. The Gemara there records a dispute among the Tana'im with regard to when the Megilah is read during a leap year. Is the Megilah read during the first Adar or the second Adar? Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Megilah should be read in the first Adar. The Gemara explains that his reason is 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvos.' In that case, there is only one Mitzvah, and yet the Gemara still applies the rule of 'Ein Ma'avirin'!
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos in Megilah answers in the name of <b>RABEINU YEHUDAH</b> that without a verse, one would have thought that although the leftover blood should be poured on the Yesod l'Chatchilah, if it was poured somewhere else it is still valid b'Di'eved. The verse 'Asher Pesach' teaches that the spilling of the blood anywhere other than the Yesod would not be considered a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of spilling the blood.
</p><p>
(c) In his second answer, Rabeinu Yehudah suggests that if not the verse, 'Ein Ma'avirin' would dictate only that the blood should be spilled on the western side of the Mizbe'ach, but not necessarily on the Yesod. The verse comes to teach that it must be spilled specifically on the Yesod of the western side of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> in Menachos (64b) answers the question of Tosfos in Megilah on the explanation of Tosfos here. He writes that when there are two possible times to do a Mitzvah, and one is unsure which is the proper time and which is not the proper time at all, 'Ein Ma'avirin' does not apply. However, if the two possible times are both appropriate for the Mitzvah, and the doubt is only which time is the <i>better</i> time to do the Mitzvah, then 'Ein Ma'avirin' applies. The Olas Shlomo asserts that the position of Rebbi Eliezer in Megilah is that even if one would read the Megilah in the second Adar, he still would fulfill the Mitzvah, since both are appropriate times to read the Megilah. However, due to 'Ein Ma'avirin,' the Megilah should be read during the first Adar. In the case of the leftover blood, without the verse there would be no indication whatsoever as to where the Torah wants the blood to be spilled. In such a case 'Ein Ma'avirin' does not apply. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN IS IT FORBIDDEN TO PASS OVER MITZVOS? <span class='indexentry'>[Mitzvos:Ma'avirin]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> The Shirayim (are poured on the Yesod on the western side of the outer Mizbe'ach.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	We learn from 'El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed', which refers to the Yesod closest to the opening of Ohel Mo'ed (or Heichal, in the Mikdash), the first side the Kohen encounters (after leaving the Heichal).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	53a	(Beraisa):</span> (Shirayim of outer Chata'os are poured) 'El Yesod ha'Mizbe'ach' - the southern Yesod;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Perhaps it refers to the western Yesod! We learn what is unspecified (outer Chata'os) from what is explicit (inner Chata'os).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> (Indeed, we learn from inner Chata'os, but differently.) Just like Shirayim of inner Chata'os are poured on the first Yesod encountered (after leaving the Heichal), Shirayim of outer Chata'os are poured on the first Yesod encountered (after descending from the ramp).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	58b (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</span> Whatever is taken from inside to be put outside is put in the closest possible place.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> This refers to Shirayim (of inner Chata'os).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> A verse explicitly teaches this - 'El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah Asher Pesach Ohel Mo'ed'!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yoma 33a (Reish Lakish):</span> We do not pass over Mitzvos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 64b (Mishnah):</span> L'Chatchilah, the Omer must be brought from a place close (to Yerushalayim).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	This is because the Omer must be Karmel (soft). Alternatively, we do not pass over Mitzvos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Megilah 6b:</span> R. Eliezer holds that even in a leap year, we celebrate Purim in the month next to Shevat. This is because we do not pass over Mitzvos.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (51a DH Asher):</span> The text should not say 'the first side the Kohen encounters.' This would imply that we learn from reasoning, and not from the verse. On 53a, we suggested learning outer Chata'os, for which the Torah did not specify where to put the Shirayim, from inner Chata'os, which are explicit. This shows that the verse explicitly teaches it; it is not from reasoning. Also, some learn that they are on the south from inner Chata'os, in which the Shirayim are poured on the first Yesod encountered. Why was the law of inner Chata'os clearer than that of outer Chata'os? The same reasoning applies to both! Also, on 58b we say that the verse explicitly teaches about Shirayim, so surely the rule 'whatever is taken... is put in the closest possible place' was not needed to teach about Shirayim. Why is the verse needed? We should know without it, due to Ein Ma'avirin Al Mitzvos! This principle taught on which corner we begin to put Dam Chatas and whether we first remove ashes from the inner Mizbe'ach or the Menorah (Yoma 15b)! We must say that Ein Ma'avirin applies only when both are in front of us and we do not know which to do first, e.g. Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach or the Menorah. It would not determine the place to put Shirayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Note - also Tosfos (Menachos 64b DH Iba'is) and Piskei Tosfos (Yoma 58b 36) say that Ein Ma'avirin teaches only about which Mitzvah to do first.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal #1 (Shitah Mekubetzes Menachos 64b:11):</span> The Gemara says that Ein Ma'avirin applies to the Omer, even though there is only one Mitzvah to do.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal #2 (Tosfos Megilah 6b DH Mistaber):</span> R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi says that we read the Megilah in Adar Rishon because Ein Ma'avirin Al Mitzvos, even though there is only one Mitzvah to do.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Defense (Yad Binyamin Menachos 64b DH v'Lashon and DH v'Achen):</span> Tosfos teaches that if the Torah fixed a place for a Mitzvah, e.g. on which side of the Mizbe'ach blood must be put, Ein Ma'avirin cannot determine the place. Tosfos agrees that Ein Ma'avirin applies to one Mitzvah when the Torah did not fix a place. The Malbim explains that Tosfos says that Ein Ma'avirin overrides Tadir (the more frequent Mitzvah) only when there are two Mitzvos to do. When there is only one Mitzvah, we pass over a Mitzvah to do what is more Tadir.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 25:1):</span> After putting on a Talis he puts on Tefilin, for we ascend in Kedushah. If one puts his Talis and Tefilin in the same bag, he should not put the Tefilin on top, lest (next time) he encounters the Tefilin first and he will have to put them on first, to avoid passing over the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Acher):</span> If one took out his Tefilin Shel Rosh before Shel Yad, he must put it aside and put the Shel Yad on first. The order specified by the Torah overrides passing over Mitzvos. The Nimukei Yosef disagrees, but his is the minority opinion. However, if one took out Tefilin before his Talis, he must put Tefilin on first. Not passing over Mitzvos overrides an Asmachta that Talis should be first.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Magen Avraham 1):</span> If the Tefilin are in a bag, passing over Mitzvos should not apply! The Shulchan Aruch itself says not to take the Tefilin Shel Rosh out of the bag until the Shel Yad is properly placed!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> He should put on the Talis first even if it is obligated only mid'Rabanan, e.g. it is borrowed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (3):</span> Even if he did not touch the Tefilin, if they are closer when he sticks out his hand he must put them on first. This is only if he wants to put them on now. If he does not intend to put them on until later, passing over Mitzvos does not apply.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (28:8):</span> One should not remove the Shel Yad until he puts away the Shel Rosh, lest he put the Shel Yad in the bag first.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If Tefilin are available but not Tzitzis, he need not wait for Tzitzis. He puts on the Tefilin, and when the Talis comes he puts it on.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (Sof Siman 34):</span> If one removed the bag with R. Tam Tefilin first, he puts them aside because we hold that Rashi Tefilin are primary. L'Chatchilah, one should ensure that this does not happen.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (36, letter Tes):</span> We must say that the right 'head' of the letter 'Tes' is not flat. If it was, we would put the crowns on it. (We would not wait to put them on the left head, due to Ein Ma'avirin.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (473:4):</span> One should arrange the Seder plate so he will not need to pass over Mitzvos. The Karpas should be closest to him, then the vinegar, Matzah, Maror and Charoses, and the meat and egg should be furthest.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Gra DH v'Yesader):</span> We learn from Yoma 33b.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chak Yakov (16):</span> The Maharil says that the Karpas should be closer than the Matzah, for if the Matzah was closer he would need to cut the Afikoman first. He did not mention the Charoses, meat and egg. Since we do not bless on them, they are mere commemorations and Ein Ma'avirin Al Mitzvos does not apply to them. Some say that Charoses is not a Mitzvah. He mentioned Matzah because we bless 'v'Tzivanu' on it and its Berachah should be before Borei Peri ha'Adamah. He did not mention Maror, even though we bless 'v'Tzivanu' on it. Perhaps this is because people do not enjoy it, and its Berachah does not have priority.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (26):</span> See the Acharonim who bring the Seder of the Ari Zal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (26):</span> Some (are not concerned for Ein Ma'avirin) and have a different Seder (according to the Ari Zal).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (58):</span> The Ari Zal says that the 10 Sefiros correspond to what is on the Seder plate, and they should be in the proper places. The three Matzos (from top to bottom) correspond to Chachmah, BInah and Da'as. Next to them (further away - PF) are the Zero'a on the right, the Beitzah on the left, and Maror in the middle, corresponding to Chesed, Gevurah and Tiferes, respectively. Charoses is in back of the Zero'a, on the right. Karpas is in back of the Beitzah on the left. Chazeres (Romaine lettuce) is in back of the Maror in the middle. These correspond to Netzach, Hod and Yesod. The plate itself corresponds to Malchus. Salt water or anything else should not be on the plate until after eating Matzah and Maror.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (669:1):</span> If a Tzibur has only two Sifrei Torah, on Simchas Torah they read v'Zos ha'Berachah in the first, from Bereishis in the second, and the Maftir in the first. The same applies whenever there is a Mitzvah to read from three Sifrei Torah and there are only two Sifrei Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Chozrin):</span> This is only if the first was already rolled to the place for Maftir, so the Tzibur will not need to wait. If not, we read in the second to avoid passing over Mitzvos (even though we must roll the second about four times as much as we would have to roll the first - PF).</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'EL YESOD MIZBACH HA'OLAH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara's discussion revolves around the verse 'El Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah' -- 'to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach of the Olah' (Vayikra 4:7). The Gemara earlier quotes a dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva with regard to what Halachah is derived from this verse. The Rishonim give differing interpretations of the Gemara, which is the subject of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ten Lah Yesod) here. The following is a summary of the different explanations of the Gemara recorded in Tosfos.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains Rebbi Yishmael's understanding of the verse in the following manner. The verse may be teaching one of two things. The first possibility is that all Korbanos brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Olah must have their leftover blood spilled opposite the Yesod. This lesson is specifically taught with regard to the Korban Olah ('Mizbach ha'Olah'), because the Torah does not explicitly mention what should be done with the leftover blood of the Korban Olah in any other verse. This is the intent of the extra phrase, 'El <i>Yesod Mizbach ha'Olah.</i>'
</p><p>
The second possibility is that the Torah is teaching that the two (which are four) Zerikos of the Korban Olah on the Mizbe'ach should be opposite the Yesod (see <b>RASHI</b> to 51a, DH O Eino, whose words differ from the words Tosfos quotes in Rashi's name
</p><p>
Rebbi Yishmael concludes that the second possibility is incorrect, since that Halachah could be derived from a Kal va'Chomer without the verse: If the leftover blood of other Korbanos, such as a Chatas, must be spilled on the Yesod, then certainly the regular Matanos of an Olah must be opposite the Yesod. (See the Gemara on 52a which discusses the difference of opinion between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva.)
</p><p>
Tosfos raises many questions on Rashi's explanation. One question is that the Gemara earlier (37a) quotes a Beraisa which derives from the verse, 'v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech' -- 'and the blood of your offerings you shall pour' (Devarim 12:27), that the leftover blood of Korbanos must be spilled opposite the Yesod. If there already is a verse that teaches this requirement, why is a second verse needed to teach the same thing?
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> who gives a similar explanation to that of Rashi, with one major difference. Rabeinu Chaim explains that the first possibility -- that the verse is teaching that the leftover blood of a Korban must be spilled opposite the Yesod -- is applies <i>only</i> to a Korban Olah, and not to any other Korban.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos proposes a third way of understanding of the Gemara. Rebbi Yishmael initially suggests that the verse is teaching that all Zerikos of Korbanos should be opposite the Yesod, with the exception of those of a Korban Chatas for which the verse says, 'Al Karnos' -- 'on the corners' (Vayikra 4:30), of the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yishmael then suggests that perhaps the verse is teaching that the Yesod is the appropriate area of Zerikah only for the Korban Olah, and not for other Korbanos. Rebbi Yishmael rejects this explanation because he learns a Kal va'Chomer from the spilling of Shirayim which applies to all other Korbanos. If the spilling of Shirayim of all other Korbanos must be on the Yesod, then certainly their Zerikos also should be opposite the Yesod. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) IS THE SPILLING OF THE 'SHIRAYIM' 'ME'AKEV'?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rav Ada bar Ahavah says that Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva disagree about whether or not Shirayim are Me'akev. Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Shirayim are Me'akev, while Rebbi Akiva maintains that they are not. Does this mean that Rebbi Yishmael maintains that if the Kohen does not spill the Shirayim on the Yesod that the Korban is Pasul?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> understands that this indeed is the view of Rebbi Yishmael. He explains that according to Rebbi Yishmael, the ability of the Zerikah to effect the atonement of the Korban depends on whether the Shirayim are spilled on the Yesod. If the Shirayim are not spilled on the Yesod, the Zerikah does not atone. <b>RAV ARYEH LEIB MALIN</b> (23:2) seems to have a similar understanding of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MEKOR BARUCH</b> (1:12) understands that the Tana'im disagree not about whether the Korban is valid, but about whether one fulfills or fails to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shirayim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> quotes many Acharonim who similarly understand that the disagreement involves whether one is obligated to leave blood over in order to spill Shirayim on the Yesod. According to Rebbi Yishmael, one is obligated to leave some blood over. According to Rebbi Akiva, one is not obligated to leave blood over in order to spill it on the Yesod; if there happens to be blood left over, then there is a Mitzvah to pour it on the Yesod. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 53b, DH ha'Olah, who implies that this is a subject of dispute among the Ba'alei ha'Tosfos.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MATANOS DAM OF OUTER CHATA'OS <span class='indexentry'>[Chatas: Zerikah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	15a (R. Zeira):</span> If a Kohen was sprinkling and he became blemished before the blood reached the airspace of the Mizbeach, it is Pasul. We require 'v'Hizah... v'Nasan.' (The Haza'ah is completed when the blood reaches the Mizbeach.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	52b (Mishnah):</span> The blood of (outer) Chata'os of the Tzibur or of a commoner must be put on each of the four Keranos. The Kohen ascends the ramp and walks on the Sovev (the walkway around the Mizbe'ach half-way up the Mizbe'ach), putting on each Keren when he comes to it, i.e. southeast, northeast, northwest and southwest;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	He pours the Shirayim on the Yesod in the south;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> How is blood put on a Keren?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or R. Elazar):</span> He puts blood on one of the (two) outer faces of the Keren, i.e. within an Amah of the edge;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (The other of R. Yochanan and R. Elazar):</span> He puts it along the edge from the top down (until the Sovev).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says that blood is put only on the Keren itself. Clearly, this is like Answer #1;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	Rebbi permits putting blood below the Keren, as long as it is above the Sovev. This could be like either answer;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Answer #1 allows putting the blood within an Amah of the edge (this is considered like the Keren). Rebbi could permit this even below the Keren. Answer #2 requires putting the blood of the edge, for only the edge is called 'Keren'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (against Answer #1 - Beraisa):</span> To do Matanos Dam of (outer) Chata'os of the Tzibur or of a commoner, the Kohen ascends the ramp and walks on the Sovev to the southeast Keren;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	He immerses his right finger, i.e. his skilled finger, in the blood in the bucket, and uses his thumb and pinky to constrict the blood so all will go on the edge, until all the blood from his finger is finished. He does the same on every Keren.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The first opinion *permits* putting the blood within an Amah of the edge. He admits that it is best to put it on the edge.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:7):</span> The blood of Chata'os that are eaten must be put four times, (once) on each of the four Keranos of the outer Mizbe'ach. It is put on the top half, for it says 'Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach.' The Kohen takes the blood in a bucket to the Mizbe'ach, immerses his right index finger in the blood in the bucket, and supports it with his thumb and middle finger, and runs his fingers down even with the edge, until he finishes all the blood on his finger. He does the same on every Keren.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> He uses the most skilled finger for all Melachah and to immerse, i.e. the right index finger. Our text says that he uses his thumb and pinky to constrict the blood so all will go on the edge. The Rambam's text says that he uses his thumb and middle finger. Surely this is correct, for the middle finger is next to the index finger. Rashi says that he draws the blood down, so all will go on the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam says he supports it. Perhaps he means that he holds it gathered in place, so it will not spread on his finger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam's text said 'big finger', unlike our text which says 'small finger.' Alternatively, it is small (in width) compared to the thumb.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> The Rambam holds that the other fingers support the index finger and enable it to be straight and firm. Try it! You will see that it needs the other fingers to support it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Likutei Halachos (53a Zevach Todah DH Amah):</span> Rashi and the Rambam connote that it suffices to put on one side of the Keren. E.g. the blood on two corners could be on the west, and the blood on the others could be on the east. This is difficult, for also regarding blood on the Keranos it says 'Saviv', so we should require on all four walls! The two Zerikos of Olah must go on both sides of the edge, in order that there will be blood on all four walls! Perhaps indeed, one may put blood on only one side of the Keren, but then he must out on the others in such a way that there will be blood on all three walls. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (Yoma 126:38 DH u'Mechatei):</span> The Beraisa says 'he is Mechatei v'Yored.' Rashi explains that he pulls his finger along the edge. If so, there is no Haza'ah (sprinkling) on the Keranos. There is only Nesinah (putting). Regarding the Keranos, the Torah mentioned only Nesinah, but not Haza'ah. Tevilah and Haza'ah of Dam Chatas is only for inner Chata'os towards the Paroches or on the inner Mizbe'ach. However, the Rambam says that he sprinkles on the Keranos. In Hilchos Yom Kipur he explains 'from above to below' to mean that his hand is above and he sprinkles so that the blood will go below. 'From below to above' means that his hand is below and he sprinkles above. Here, he says 'Mechatei v'Yored', like the Beraisa. It seems that for inner Chata'os, all of the blood is sprinkled, but outer Chata'os is only put. Putting does not suffice even b'Di'eved when sprinkling is required. However, sprinkling suffices when the Mitzvah is Nesinah. Perhaps even l'Chatchilah he may sprinkle if he wants! Zevachim 15a discusses Haza'ah on the outer Mizbe'ach. This is difficult for Rashi, who says that he puts the blood! Perhaps this is after Haza'ah. This is not called adding Haza'os, rather, adding *to the Haza'ah*. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid):</span> If he put the blood within an Amah of the edge on either side, he atoned.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> Even though the Gemara did not resolve which Amora holds that he atoned if the blood was within an Amah of the edge, the Rambam rules that he atoned, for the Gemara concludes like this. Also, even if it were a Safek, we should not bring (a second Korban due to Safek, for if he already atoned, the latter is) Chulin b'Azarah. He rules like Rebbi, that the primary Mitzvah is to put on the edge. The Halachah follows Rebbi against a colleague, and especially here, for Amora'im argue according to Rebbi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam rules like the Amora who holds that the blood is put within an Amah of the edge. I explain that since R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does not require the edge, it is best to say that also Rebbi does not, to minimize the argument. Also, since Amora'im argue about this, we cannot disqualify (b'Di'eved) if it is within an Amah of the edge. L'Chatchilah, we require on the edge.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Keren Orah (53a DH Aliba):</span> Rashi connotes that on the Keren itself, even l'Chatchilah one need not put on the edge. The edge is required only below. The Rambam said Stam that the Mitzvah is to put on the edge. This connotes even when putting on the Keren itself. He can explain that when it says in the conclusion 'the Mitzvah is to put on the edge', this is even according to R. Elazar. We need not say like the Kesef Mishneh that the Rambam was unsure.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chak Nasan (53a DH Hachi):</span> The Gemara connotes that Rebbi and R. Elazar argue only about b'Di'eved, but all agree that l'Chatchilah one must put on the edge. The Rambam does not say so due to Safek.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Likutei Halachos (53a Zevach Todah DH Mitzvah):</span> The Gemara and Rambam connote that l'Chatchilah, Rebbi permits to put below the Keren, since it is above the Chut ha'Sikra. I am unsure about the following. He holds that since below the Keren is like the Keren, the place of the Keren is considered to be until four Amos below, but even so, l'Chatchilah the Mitzvah is to put on the edge. Does he say the same when putting on the actual Keren? Perhaps the same applies to R. Elazar. The Gemara initially said that all agree according to R. Elazar (that within an Amah is Kosher), i.e. b'Di'eved, but l'Chatchilah he requires the edge. Or, perhaps anywhere on the Keren itself is called Keren, and it is l'Chatchilah. Rashi connotes like this. However, Rashi (10b DH ul'Ta'amech) connotes like the first way I suggested. The Rambam did not distinguish putting on the Keren itself from putting below. This suggests like my first approach.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) KORBANOS WHICH NEED 'ZERIKAH' ABOVE OR BELOW THE 'CHUT HA'SIKRA'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Different types of Zerikah are done with different types of Korbanos. Some Korbanos require that four different sprinklings be done with their blood, and some require only one. The Gemara here quotes a Beraisa which states that if a Korban was supposed to have four sprinklings but only one was done, it is valid b'Di'eved. The Beraisa continues and suggests that, similarly, if the Zerikah of a Korban was supposed to be done above the Chut ha'Sikra but it was done below the Chut ha'Sikra, it should be valid b'Di'eved. However, the Beraisa derives from a Gezeirah Shavah that this is not the case. The Torah uses the word 'Damim' with regard to both types of Korbanos (the Korban which needs Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra, and the Korban which needs it below). The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that just as a Korban which needs Zerikah below the Chut ha'Sikra is Pasul if the Zerikah is done above the Chut ha'Sikra, a Korban which needs Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra is Pasul if the Zerikah is done below the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
What specific Korbanos is the Gemara discussing?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ne'emru and v'Ne'emar) explains that the Korban which needs Zerikah below the Chut ha'Sikra is a Chatas ha'Of, while the Korban which needs Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra is a Chatas Behemah. Rashi (DH Mah Damim) explains that the verse which discusses Chatas ha'Of says, 'Chatas Hi' -- 'it is a Chatas' (Vayikra 5:11), teaching that the blood of the Chatas ha'Of must be placed below the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah Damim) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. How do the words 'Chatas Hi' imply that the Zerikah must be done only in the place specified by the Torah? When the Torah discusses the Chatas Behemah, it also says an extra word 'Hi': 'Kodesh Kodashim Hi.' According to Rashi's logic, why is it necessary to compare Chatas Behemah to Chatas ha'Of in order to teach that the Zerikah of a Chatas Behemah may be done only above the Chut ha'Sikra? This can be derived from the extra word of 'Hi' written with regard to Chatas Behemah!
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> is also bothered by this question, and he asks another question on Rashi's explanation. According to Rashi, the train of thought of the Beraisa is unclear. Does it follow that once we know that a Korban which is supposed to have four sprinklings is valid b'Di'eved if only one sprinkling is done, that a Korban which needs Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra is valid b'Di'eved if Zerikah is done below the Chut ha'Sikra? What does one have to do with the other?
</p><p>
(b) The Shitah Mekubetzes quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who explains the flow of the Beraisa. The Beraisa first says that a verse teaches that the Zerikah (of a Chatas Behemah) must be done above the Chut ha'Sikra. The Beraisa then asks, why would one have thought otherwise? It answers that since the verse says, 'v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech' -- 'and the blood of your offerings you shall pour [on the Yesod]' (Devarim 12:27), one might have inferred that this refers not only to leftover blood, but that any blood spilled on the lower part of the Mizbe'ach is considered a valid Zerikah (see Shitah Mekubetzes at length for how the verse implies specifically the lower part of the Mizbe'ach). The Beraisa then says that this is not a good enough reason to require a verse in the case of Chatas Behemah to teach that the Zerikah is Pasul if done below the Chut ha'Sikra, since it can be derived from Chatas ha'Of. Just as the Zerikah of a Chatas ha'Of is Pasul if done on the upper half of the Mizbe'ach (since there is no indication in the verse that it is valid), the Zerikah of a Chatas Behemah should be Pasul if done on the bottom half of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
In addition to his explanation of the flow of the Beraisa, the Ri points out that the derivation from Chatas ha'Of would not because of a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of 'Hi,' which would also apply to Chatas Behemah, but rather it is based on logical grounds.
</p><p>
How does Rashi answer the question of the Shitah Mekubetzes, that the Torah also writes an extra word 'Hi' with regard to Chatas Behemah?
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes quotes his Rebbi who answers that the word 'Hi' in the verse of a Chatas Behemah appears before the Torah discusses the Zerikah of the Chatas Behemah. Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that the verse is teaching a Halachah of a Chatas Behemah unique to Zerikah. In contrast, the words 'Chatas Hi' in the verse of a Chatas ha'Of indeed appears after mention of the Zerikah. Therefore, it indeed could be teaching a Halachah about the Zerikah.
</p><p>
This answer is also given by the <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> and the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b>. The Tzon Kodashim points out that this question indeed was anticipated and answered by Rashi, who writes (DH l'Matah), 'd'Ha Kesiv <i>b'Haza'aso</i> Chatas Hi' -- 'that it is written <i>with regard to its Haza'ah</i> (i.e. the Haza'ah of the Chatas ha'Of) 'Chatas Hi'.' (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE THAT ONLY MALE KOHANIM MAY EAT THE MEAT OF A 'KORBAN CHATAS'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Chatas may be eaten only by male Kohanim. <b>RASHI</b> (DH l'Zichrei Kehunah) explains that the verse says, 'ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah [Yochelenah]' -- 'the Kohen who applies its blood [shall eat it]' (Vayikra 6:19), which excludes women from eating the meat of a Korban Chatas. How does it exclude women? The Torah apparently means that only Kohanim who may perform the Avodah of the Korban may eat the meat of the Korban. Since women may not perform the Avodah of the Korban, they may not eat the Korban.
</p><p>
Rashi adds that when the Torah discusses the Korban Chatas and Korban Asham in Parshas Korach, it says, 'Kol Zachar Yochal Oso' -- 'Any male may eat it' (Bamidbar 18:10).
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand. Why does Rashi make an inference from the verse of 'ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah,' and cite verses from Parshas Korach, when the Torah clearly states in the Parshah of Korban Chatas (Vayikra 6:22), 'Kol Zachar ba'Kohanim Yochal Oso' -- 'Any male among the Kohanim should eat it'?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> answers that Rashi is applying the principle that in the laws of Kodshim, when the Torah states a Halachah only once and does not clearly state that if the Halachah is not fulfilled the Avodah of the Korban is invalid, the Torah means that the Halachah is only a Mitzvah l'Chatchilah. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 4b, DH Eima, who mentions this principle.) Rashi knows that there is an explicit verse in the Parshah of Korban Chatas (Vayikra 6:22) that teaches that the meat of a Korban Chatas is to be eaten by male Kohanim. Perhaps, though, that verse teaches only the Mitzvah l'Chatchilah; if a female Kohenes eats the meat of a Korban Chatas, perhaps b'Di'eved the act of eating is valid. To prove that a female Kohenes' act of eating is invalid even b'Di'eved, Rashi cites the verse of 'ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei,' which excludes women. Rashi mentions the verse in Bamidbar only as an additional source. Since that verse refers to many types of Korbanos (Chatas, Asham, and Minchah) in the same sentence, it is not sufficient to teach that a male Kohen must eat the meat of the Korban even b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
The <b>OLAS SHLOMO</b> has difficulty with the answer of the Tzon Kodashim. The eating of Korbanos is not a part of the Avodah which is Me'akev the Korban from being valid. Although it is true that with regard to Kodshim, the Torah states a law twice to teach that it is Me'akev, the eating of the meat of a Korban is <i>not</i> Me'akev, as it is not part of the Avodah. The Korban is valid whether or not it is eaten.
</p><p>
(b) The Olas Shlomo answers that Rashi mentions both verses because of the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Shabbos (136b). Rebbi Yehudah derives from a verse that one may perform a Bris Milah on an Androginus (a person with both male and female reproductive organs) on Shabbos. Rebbi Yehudah clearly maintains that an Androginus has the status of a male. Accordingly, if the Torah would have said only the verse of 'Kol Zachar,' one would have thought that an Androginus may eat Kodshim, since he is considered a male. Rashi therefore points out that the Torah adds, 'ha'Kohen ha'Mechatei Osah,' which teaches that only a person who may perform the Avodah is permitted to eat Kodshim. Since an Androginus may not perform Avodah, he may not eat Kodshim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> explains that Rashi quotes the verse of 'Kol Zachar' in Bamidbar (18:10) instead of the verse in Vayikra (6:22) because the verse in Bamidbar states that not only a Chatas, but also an Asham and Minchah, must be eaten exclusively by male Kohanim. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> HOW LONG MAY ONE DELAY BEFORE SAYING KRI'AS SHEMA AT NIGHT? <span class='indexentry'>[Kri'as Shema: night :time]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> Male Kohanim eat the meat of Chatas within the hangings (or the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash), in any way, that day and until midnight.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 2a (Mishnah) Question:</span> When do we say Keri'as Shema at night?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Eliezer):</span> It is from the time when Kohanim may eat Terumah until the end of the first Mishmar (three or four hours into the night).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Chachamim):</span> The time extends until midnight.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (R. Gamliel):</span> The time extends until dawn.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	A case occurred, and R. Gamliel's sons returned from a wedding after midnight. (They had not said Shema.) He told them 'you must say it now. In fact, wherever Chachamim said 'until midnight,' the Torah Mitzvah is until dawn.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Chelev and limbs may be burned on the Mizbe'ach until dawn. Any Korban that may be eaten for one day and a night is permitted until dawn. Chachamim said 'until midnight' to distance people from transgression.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	4b:</span> Chachamim hold like R. Gamliel. They say 'until midnight' to distance people from transgressing;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> Chachamim made a fence, lest one come home and say, 'I will eat and sleep a bit, and later I will say Shema and pray.' Perhaps he will sleep the entire night! Rather, when he returns, he goes to the Beis ha'Keneses, learns, reads Shema and prays. Afterwards, he eats. Anyone who transgresses Chachamim's words is Chayav Misah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	8b (Rav Yehudah):</span> The Halachah follows R. Gamliel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Shimon citing R. Akiva):</span> One can read Shema (after dawn and) before sunrise, and fulfill his obligation for the night Shema.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Acha bar Chinena):</span> The Halachah follows this opinion.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	9a (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</span> Rav Acha inferred this from an episode in which two Rabanan got drunk (and did not say Shema before dawn). R. Yehoshua ben Levi said 'in pressed circumstances, we may rely on R. Shimon.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	Surely, R. Gamliel's sons heard this Halachah from their father before this episode! They asked 'do Chachamim argue with you? If so, they are the majority, so the Halachah follows them. Or, do they agree with you, and midnight is only a deadline mid'Rabanan to distance people from Aveirah?' R. Gamliel answered 'they agree with me.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Mishnah implies that R. Gamliel said that the Mitzvah of Kri'as Shema is only until midnight. R. Gamliel did not say this!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> He told his sons that even Chachamim, who say until midnight, agree that the Torah Mitzvah is until dawn. They say until midnight to distance people from transgressing.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Berachos 2a):</span> The Halachah is, one is Yotzei the evening Shema before dawn. This is b'Di'eved. Even if he was Mezid, he was Yotzei, but it is forbidden. Chachamim made a fence lest one transgress. One who disobeys is Chayav Misah. R. Shimon's Heter to be Yotzei Kri'as Shema after dawn is only in pressed circumstances, e.g. he was drunk or sick. Then we said that one may rely on R. Shimon. If he was Mezid, he was not Yotzei.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yonah (1a DH v'Chachamim):</span> Chachamim and R. Gamliel argue only about a fence. R. Gamliel does not make a fence. All agree that l'Chatchilah one must read immediately at Tzeis ha'Kochavim. The Beraisa discusses one who returns home even before the time for Shema. He should learn until Tzeis ha'Kochavim. The argument is about b'Di'eved. Chachamim say that even b'Di'eved one is Yotzei only until midnight, due to a fence. R. Gamliel says that he is Yotzei until the entire night.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Kri'as Shema 1:9):</span> The Mitzvah of Kri'as Shema at night is from Tzeis ha'Kochavim until midnight. If one transgressed and read it afterwards, before dawn, he was Yotzei. Chachamim said 'until midnight' only to distance people from negligence.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Berachos 1:9):</span> The Mitzvah is until dawn. One need not be stringent until midnight for Kri'as Shema like for other matters. Chachamim argue only about a fence, and R. Gamliel does not require this. However, one may not eat or sleep (some texts - drink) beforehand, lest sleep overcome him. R. Gamliel taught that one is Yotzei until dawn when there is no Ones. R. Shimon taught that one is Yotzei until sunrise when there is Ones. R. Gamliel's sons were not Anusim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (Berachos 9a DH u'Vnei):</span> R. Gamliel permits waiting until shortly before dawn to read Shema. Even Chachamim only require reading before midnight. One may learn or work until shortly before then. However, both forbid eating and sleeping beforehand, for they lead to negligence. Even if he began, he must interrupt. The same applies to everything forbidden (before Minchah, e.g.) entering a bathhouse or a haircut. Other matters do not lead to negligence; they are permitted. The Yerushalmi supports this. R. Yosi said that one may learn, but he must pay read Shema before midnight. So it seems to me. However, the Rif and other Gedolim forbid delaying. Once the time comes, he must read, like the Beraisa connotes.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 235:3):</span> L'Chatchilah, one must recite Kri'as Shema immediately at Tzeis ha'Kochavim. Its time is until midnight. If one transgressed and did not read it until dawn, he was Yotzei.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah and DH Aval):</span> The Tur, Rosh and Rashba permit waiting until shortly before dawn to read Shema. The Rambam and Semag say that the Mitzvah l'Chatchilah is to read before midnight. They hold that we rule like R. Gamliel against R. Eliezer, who says that the Mitzvah is until the end of the first Mishmar, but not against Chachamim, who say that the Mitzvah is until midnight to distance people from Aveirah. We follow the majority against an individual. Bechoros 9a connotes that R. Gamliel's sons thought that the Halachah does not follow their father when Chachamim disagree. R. Gamliel obligated them only because Chachamim agree. Therefore, the Halachah follows Chachamim, who enacted to read it immediately at Tzeis ha'Kochavim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH umi'Chlal):</span> This shows that even before the time, one may not eat. It seems that this is a half hour beforehand, like we say about Minchah. The Mordechai (Shabbos 224) says that if one began to eat after dark before praying Ma'ariv, he must interrupt to say Shema. If he began eating earlier, when it was permitted, he need not interrupt. Also the Ran (Shabbos 4a fh Hilkach) says that one must interrupt Torah Mitzvos such as Kri'as Shema if he began after the time came, even if there is to do so after eating.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH u'Zmanah):</span> The Yerushalmi says that R. Gamliel argues with Chachamim, and he acted like his opinion. (In other cases) R. Meir, R. Akiva and R. Shimon argued with Chachamim, but they did not act like their opinions. The Yerushalmi explains that there, they were able to fulfill Divrei Chachamim. Here R. Gamliel could not, for midnight already passed. This is unlike the Rosh (who says that Chachamim permit l'Chatchilah to wait until midnight, and b'Di'eved after midnight). The Rambam says that Chachamim hold that even b'Di'eved one does not read after midnight, for he is not Yotzei. Chachamim can enact to uproot a Torah Mitzvah through telling people to be passive. However, the Bavli connotes otherwise. (Rather, Chachamim agree that one is Yotzei after midnight.) However, we can say that the first Tana holds that he is not Yotzei. The Halachah follows R. Gamliel b'Di'eved, especially because the Rambam always leans to follow the Yerushalmi (when it can be resolved with the Bavli).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (26):</span> One should read immediately at Tzeis ha'Kochavim, for zealous people do Mitzvos promptly.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (23):</span> If one was teaching at the time, he does not interrupt until he finishes teaching. However, if he began teaching after the time came, he interrupts to say Shema and pray, and then resumes teaching.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (27):</span> One who delays until midnight transgressed Divrei Chachamim. There is no Isur to delay until midnight, just he is not zealous. However, if he eats or engages in distracting labors, letter of the law it is forbidden from when the time came.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (29):</span> One who was negligent may read until dawn. If he was Anus, he may read until sunrise.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH u'Zmanah):</span> Many Rishonim hold like the Rambam, but also many hold like the Rosh. In pressed circumstances, e.g. he is teaching Torah, one may rely on the Rosh and delay until after midnight.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE OMISSION OF THE MISHNAH OF THE SPILLING OF THE 'SHIRAYIM'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the Halachos of the Korban Olah. The Gemara notes that when the Mishnah discusses the Korban Olah, it mentions that an Olah is Kodesh Kodashim. Why does the Mishnah mention this here, but not when it discusses the Korban Chatas, which is also Kodesh Kodashim?
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that since the Torah does not explicitly say that an Olah is Kodesh Kodashim, the Mishnah deems it necessary to say that it is Kodesh Kodashim.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH ha'Olah) notes a similar difference between the Mishnah here and the Mishnayos that discuss other Korbanos. The Mishnah here omits mention of what must be done with the leftover blood after Zerikah. The previous Mishnah, which discusses the Korban Chatas, states clearly that the leftover blood is spilled on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach, and its spilling does not affect the Kashrus of the Korban. Why is this Halachah not mentioned in the Mishnah here, which discusses the Korban Olah? It does not seem logical that the blood of the Korban Olah should have a different Halachic status than the blood of the Korban Chatas, as the Gemara earlier (37a) says that all leftover blood of Korbanos must be spilled on the Yesod.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU MOSHE</b> of Fontasia who answers that although this Halachah applies to the leftover blood of an Olah as well, the Mishnah does not mention it because it is not always applicable. Since the Zerikah of the blood of an Olah is done with a Kli, there often is no blood leftover after the Zerikah. This is in contrast to a Chatas, for which the Zerikah is done with the finger of the Kohen, and there always is blood leftover to spill on the Yesod. This is why the Mishnah mentions this Halachah only with regard to a Chatas and not with regard to an Olah.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, rejects this answer based on his understanding of various Gemaros, which teach that there is a special Mitzvah for the Kohen to spill the leftover blood of every Korban on the Yesod, even that of an Olah. Since there is such a Mitzvah, it is assumed that the Kohen always ensures that the Korban Olah has blood leftover after the Zerikah.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU YAKOV</b> of Orleans who explains that the first Mishnah in the Perek discusses the types of Korban Chatas which need Zerikah on the inner Mizbe'ach. The leftover blood of those Korbanos is spilled on the western side of the Yesod. The previous Mishnah discusses a regular Chatas which is offered on the outer Mizbe'ach, and it mentions that the leftover blood is spilled on the southern side of the Yesod. Once the Tana has established the general principle of the leftover blood -- that the leftover blood of Korbanos offered on the inner Mizbe'ach must be spilled on the western side of the Yesod, and the leftover blood of Korbanos offered on the outer Mizbe'ach must be spilled on the southern part of the Yesod, the Tana saw no need to mention again what to do with the leftover blood of Korbanos. It is obvious that the leftover blood of any Korban offered on the outer Mizbe'ach is to be spilled on the southern side of the Yesod.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> quotes the <b>RAM</b> who concludes that the Tana indeed could have mentioned this Halachah here, but is a case of 'Tana v'Shiyer' ('he taught and left over'); the Tana does not teach all of a subject at once, and sometimes leave over information to be taught somewhere else. In this case, the information was taught later in the Mishnah in Tamid (30b), where the Tana clearly states that leftover blood is spilled on the southern part of the Yesod. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: BINYAMIN'S REWARD</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that Binyamin was distressed when he learned that his portion of Eretz Yisrael would not contain all parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Mizbe'ach. In his portion would be only the Mizbe'ach and the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the west of the Mizbe'ach, while in the portion of Yehudah would be the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash to the east of the Mizbe'ach and a strip right beneath the eastern (and southern) base of the Mizbe'ach. Binyamin was distressed that he would receive only part of the Mizbe'ach and not the entire Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
As reward for his strong desire to have all of the parts of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, Binyamin merited 'to become the host for the Almighty.' <b>RASHI</b> in Megilah (26a, DH v'Na'aseh) explains that this means that 'the Aron ha'Kodesh was placed in his portion.'
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks that if Binyamin saw that his portion of land would contain most of the Mizbe'ach except for one small strip on the eastern side of the Mizbe'ach, then certainly he knew that the Mizbe'ach and the area to the west of it would all be in his portion. Accordingly, he already knew that the Aron ha'Kodesh would be in his portion. What, then, does the Gemara mean when it says that Binyamin was rewarded for his feelings of distress by having the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion? It was already in his portion!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) Hash-m revealed to Binyamin that both he and Yehudah would have parts of the Mizbe'ach in their respective portions. Binyamin, however, did not know exactly how this distribution would be executed. All he knew was that he would share the Mizbe'ach with Yehudah. Since he so strongly desired to have all of the Beis ha'Mikdash in his portion, he merited to receive the area to the side of the Mizbe'ach that contained the Aron ha'Kodesh.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> (Devarim 33:12; see also <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>) gives a different explanation for what the Gemara means when it says that Binyamin merited 'to become the host for the Almighty.'
</p><p>
The Gemara in Zevachim (118b) says that the Shechinah dwelled among the Jewish people in three places: in the Mishkan in Shilo, in Nov and Giv'on, and in the Beis ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. All three places were in the portion of Binyamin. Binyamin foresaw that he would have the Aron ha'Kodesh in his portion in the <i>Beis ha'Mikdash</i>, while Yehudah would have in his portion only a strip from the Mizbe'ach. As reward for his distress that the eastern base of the Mizbe'ach would not be in his portion, Binyamin merited that the <i>other</i> places in which the Aron ha'Kodesh would reside would be in his portion as well. (This may be the intention of Rashi in Megilah.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> answers this question based on the Midrash. The Midrash explains that the verse, 'u'Vein Keseifav Shachen' -- 'and He dwells between his shoulders' (Devarim 33:12), alludes Hashem's dwelling in the portion of Binyamin <i>at all times</i>, even when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash. Binyamin's reward for his distress is that even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing, the Shechinah rests in Binyamin's portion. (See also Insights to Megilah 26:2 and Yoma 12:3.)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> PLATED EARTHENWARE KELIM <span class='indexentry'>[Klei Cheres :Klei Kunya]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> To build the Mizbe'ach, we bring whole, smooth stones, plaster, Kunya and pitch, mix them and pour it into a frame...</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 33b (Rav Zvid):</span> Black or white Klei Kunya (earthenware vessels covered with lead or glass) are permitted. If they are green, they are forbidden, for they are from Tzarif (earth from alum ore).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mereimar):</span> They are permitted, whether they are black or white or green.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why is the law (of Kunya) different regarding Chametz?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> May Klei Kunya (that were used with Chametz) be used on Pesach?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	Surely, green Kelim absorb, and they are forbidden. The question is only about white or black Kelim. If they have cracks, they absorb, and they are forbidden. The question is only if they are smooth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Mereimar):</span> The outer walls give off moisture. This shows that they absorb, so they are forbidden.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> Why are they (permanently) forbidden?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Answer:</span> The Torah testified that absorptions in Cheres (earthenware) never leave the walls. ('U'Chli Cheres Asher Tevushal Bo Yishaver' - if it could be Kashered, we would not need to break the Keli.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Summation of question (4):</span> Mereimar permits all Klei Kunya of Nochrim. Regarding Chametz, he forbids all Klei Kunya!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1:</span> He is stringent about Chametz, for it is a Torah prohibition, but Yayin Nesech (wine offered to idolatry) is mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> Chachamim enact like Torah law!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2:</span> The Kelim are used with hot Chametz (so they absorb). Wine is (normally) cold.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesuvos 107b:</span> The Halachah follows Rav Zvid.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Avodah Zarah 12b and 2:24):</span> White and black Klei Kunya are permitted. Green Kelim are forbidden. If they have cracks, even black and white Kelim are forbidden. The Halachah follows Rav Zvid, like it says in Kesuvos. This refers to Yayin Nesech, which is cold. Regarding Chametz, which is hot, all are forbidden. The outer walls give off moisture. This shows that they absorb, so they are forbidden. Absorptions in Cheres never leave the walls.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh:</span> Rashi says that Klei Kunya are plated with lead. R. Tam says that they are covered by melted glass.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:18):</span> One may drink from a cup of Cheres that a Nochri drank from only if he rinsed it three times, for the drops of wine are gone. This is if it is plated with lead the way potters make them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (19):</span> If Yayin Nesech was used in a Keli Cheres smoothed with lead, if it is white, red or black, it is permitted. If it is green, it is forbidden, for it absorbs. If the Cheres is exposed in some place, whether it is white or green, it is forbidden, for it absorbs. This is only if the wine was put in for a long time. If not, one rinses it and it is permitted, even if it is of Cheres.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 5:25):</span> Any Keli Cheres used for hot Chametz, whether a Keli Rishon (pot) or a Keli Sheni (bowl), whether it is  smoothed with lead that they make like glass, or plain Cheres, one may not use it for Matzah. One leaves it for after Pesach.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 135:5):</span> Kelim of Neser, i.e. they are made from earth from which alum is mined) absorb very much. They can never be Kashered, even if they were not used for 12 months, and wine is not put in them for a long time, and a Yisrael used them first.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (6):</span> Klei Cheres plated with lead or with Resuchei glass (Rema - a kind of glass Keli that was not fully cooked. It is from sand), if they are green they are like Kelim of Neser, for they have earth from alum ore. If they are white or black, if they are smooth without crevices, they are like metal Kelim. If they have crevices, they are Klei Cheres that are not smooth.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Im):</span> If they have crevices, if they were first used by Nochrim, Iruy (Kashering by leaving water in a Keli for 24 hours, three times) is needed. If they were first used by Yisre'elim, Shichshuch (washing and scrubbing them with water) suffices.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (8):</span> The Shulchan Aruch connotes that this refers to our Stam Klei Cheres, unlike the Tur in the name of the Rosh (that it is only Kelim made from a special earth). If so, one may not put our wine in a thin-necked Keli Cheres of a Nochri, for it was first used for Asur wine, and rinsing does not help. However, barrels used also for water are permitted, for perhaps the first use was for water. We are lenient about a Safek for mid'Rabanan laws.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 451:23):</span> Klei Cheres plated with melted glass are like Klei Cheres.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Mani):</span> The Mordechai (Pesachim 584) says that R. Tam says that this is only if glass was melted on, for glass is from sand, like Cheres. If they were plated with lead, they are Kashered through Hag'alah (putting in boiling water), like metal Kelim. Also Semag says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (45):</span> Hag'alah helps if they are plated with real lead, but not if they merely get the appearance of lead.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (137):</span> This is if they are plated on every side. Even though the Mechaber (Sa'if 26) holds that glass does not absorb at all, here it covers the Cheres and was fired with it in the kiln, so it absorbs more.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahah (in Mishnah Berurah):</span> The Chasam Sofer said that Hag'alah does not help for iron pots on which a white, smooth plating was melted on. Some Gedolim are stringent about this only regarding Chametz, when it is not a Ben Yomo (used for Isur in the last 24 hours) and there is only a tiny amount (of Isur) in the plating.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (72):</span> Zevachim 54a connotes that Kunya is not lead.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (138):</span> The Acharonim are stringent even if it is plated with lead or tin, for Chametz is absorbed in the entire Keli, including the Cheres, and it never leaves.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (278):</span> The Tur is stringent about lead. Ma'amar Mordechai says that perhaps also the Mechaber is stringent.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (139):</span> If the Keli is used for hot food, it is forbidden in every case. If it is used only for cold, if it is from white or black earth, Hag'alah or Iruy permits, or even Shichshuch if it has no crevices.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> In some places the custom is not to use glazed Klei Cheres on Pesach, even if they are new. One should be stringent only in a place where there is such a custom.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (29):</span> The reason for the stringent opinion is because some use bran (to make them). Maharil (47) says that it is because we cannot tell whether the Nochri used them for Chametz. This is difficult. If so, we should be stringent the entire year, lest he used it for Isur! We must say that it is a mere stringency because one can use other Kelim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (46):</span> Bran is used to strengthen them, and they are put in a mere oven. A kiln would burn the bran and permit them, but this is only if it was heated for two or three days consecutively. Some forbid a Keli that received some Kunya from another Keli. If it was returned to the kiln it is permitted. This does not permit a fully glazed Keli, for the owner fears to ruin it and does not fire it enough. A Ga'on says that we should forbid every glazed Keli, lest it was used beforehand; we are lenient because perhaps it is not a Ben Yomo. We are more stringent about Pesach. In some places a Yisrael oversees the making of the Keli. This does not remove the latter concern.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (141):</span> Even where there is a custom, if we know that no bran was put in, one may be lenient.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (282):</span> Even where there is a custom, we do not forbid the food b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WAS THERE A 'SHAMIR' IN THE TIME OF THE SECOND BEIS HA'MIKDASH?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the construction of the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. One of the important requirements of the construction of the Mizbe'ach is that the stones must be whole, and they may not be shaped in any way with the use of metal utensils, as the verses teach, 'You will build with whole stones the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m, your G-d' (Devarim 26:7), and 'Mizbe'ach Avanim Lo Sanif Aleihem Barzel' -- 'A Mizbe'ach of stones, do not wield on them metal' (Devarim 26:5).
</p><p>
The Gemara in Sotah (48b) relates that in the first Beis ha'Mikdash, the stones were cut using the Shamir, the miraculous stone-cutting worm. The Gemara here, however, makes no mention of the use of the Shamir in cutting the stones of the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash. Was the Shamir in existence during the building of the second Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Avanim) cites many proofs that the Shamir existed during the period of the building of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. One proof is from the Mishnah in Sotah (48a). The Mishnah there first states, 'When the first Nevi'im died, the Urim v'Tumim stopped.' The Mishnah then states, 'When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Shamir became extinct.' Tosfos explains that the phrase, 'When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed,' must refer to the second Beis ha'Mikdash, because the Gemara there explains that the phrase, 'When the first Nevi'im died,' refers to the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. If the phrase, 'When the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed,' would refer to the first Beis ha'Mikdash, then the Mishnah should make both statements together, saying, 'When the first Nevi'im died, the Urim v'Tumim stopped and the Shamir became extinct.' The fact that the Mishnah separates these two occurrences into two cases shows that they happened in two different time periods. Hence, the second phrase is teaching that the Shamir became extinct only after the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Tosfos adds that the Gemara in Kidushin (31a) relates the story of Dama ben Nesinah, the Nochri who excelled in his honor of his father and who refused to wake up his father in order to sell the precious stones needed for the Efod. Tosfos says that this incident occurred during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara in Sotah (48b) says that according to all opinions, these stones may be cut only by the Shamir. It must be that the Shamir existed in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
However, Tosfos does not explain why the Gemara here makes no mention of the use of the Shamir in the cutting of the stones for the Mizbe'ach in the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (95:6) writes that the <b>RAMBAM</b> and <b>RAMBAN</b> disagree with Tosfos and maintain that the Shamir did not exist in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Minchas Chinuch points out that the Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:7) does not record the Halachah, quoted by Tosfos, in the Gemara in Sotah (48b) that the stones of the Efod must be made with the Shamir. The Minchas Chinuch suggests that the Rambam must have had a source which taught that the lack of a Shamir does not disqualify the stones of the Efod.
</p><p>
The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> explains that the Ramban understands the Gemara in Sotah differently from Tosfos. The Ramban understands that when the Gemara there mentions the stones of the Efod, it does not refer to the stones of the Efod but to the stones of the Choshen, which is sometimes called the Efod (since the two are connected). Only the stones of the Choshen must be carved by the Shamir, but not the actual stones on the Efod. Since there was no Choshen in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash (according to the Rambam), the absence of the Shamir was not a problem.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH <b><b>LO</b></b> NODA L'MI</b> and the <b>ME'IRI</b> in Kidushin (31a) also maintain that there was no Shamir in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'ANYWHERE IN THE AZARAH' OR 'WITHIN THE CURTAINS'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a Korban Todah is Kodshim Kalim and may be slaughtered 'anywhere in the Azarah.' The Gemara and Mefarshim analyze the different terminologies used throughout the Mishnayos of this Perek. In other Mishnayos (such as the previous Mishnah, which discusses the Korban Asham), the term 'anywhere in the Azarah' is replaced with 'within the curtains,' although the meaning apparently is the same.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah sometimes use one term, and other times it uses the other term? (<b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> answers that in a later Mishnah, which discusses the Mishkan, the Tana writes that Kodshei Kodashim were eaten 'within the curtains,' a reference to the Mishkan which was enclosed by curtains. Since the Tana uses this description of the Azarah when he explains the laws of Kodshei Kodashim in the Mishkan, he uses the same terminology when he describes the laws of Kodshei Kodashim in general. In contrast, since the Tana does not discuss the laws of Kodshim Kalim in the Mishkan, he uses the simple terminology of 'within the Azarah' when he discusses the location of Shechitah for Kodshim Kalim in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> has difficulty with the usage of these phrases from the Mishnah later (63a) which discusses the laws of Menachos. The Mishnah there states that Kemitzah may be performed 'anywhere in the Azarah,' and that the Minchah is eaten 'within the curtains.' Why does the Tana use two different phrases to describe the same area <i>in one Mishnah</i>?
</p><p>
The Rashash answers that there indeed is a practical difference between these two phrases. The Gemara later (56a) teaches that there are chambers that open into the Azarah, and that in those chambers one is not allowed to slaughter Kodshim Kalim, but a Kohen is allowed to eat Kodshei Kodashim there. This explains why the term used for eating Korbanos is 'within the curtains'; this term includes an area which is wider than the actual Azarah. However, when the Mishnah discusses the area for the Avodah of the Korbanos, the Mishnah always uses the term 'anywhere in the Azarah,' in order to teach that the Shechitah must be done in the Azarah itself, and not in open that open into the Azarah. (See also <b>SEFAS EMES</b> who gives an answer similar to that of the Rashash.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ONE MAY GUARD A TRAPPED ANIMAL <span class='indexentry'>[Shabbos:trapping]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yehudah):</span> If Shelamim was slaughtered before the gate of the Heichal was opened, it is Pasul. It says 'u'Shchato *Pesach* Ohel Mo'ed', i.e. when it is open, but not when it is locked.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	Clearly, if the door is shut, this is like being locked.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 106b (Mishnah):</span> If a deer entered a house and one locked the door, he is liable.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	If Reuven sat in the doorway and did not fill it, and Shimon sat (next to him) and filled it (trapping a deer in the house), Shimon is liable;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	If Reuven sat in and filled (the width of) the doorway, and Shimon sat next to him (and also filled the width), even if Reuven left and Shimon remained, Reuven is liable and Shimon is exempt. Shimon is like one who locked his house to guard the contents, and a deer was found inside.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Aba):</span> If a bird entered under the corner of one's garment (and trapped itself, on Shabbos), one may guard it until Motzei Shabbos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah):</span> If Reuven sat in the doorway and filled it, and Shimon sat next to him, even if Reuven left and Shimon remained, Reuven is liable and Shimon is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> Shimon is exempt, but it is forbidden to remain!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> No, he is exempt and permitted (to do so).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (Seifa):</span> (Shimon) is like one who locked his house to guard the contents, and a deer was found inside.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	This shows that he is exempt and permitted.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Shabbos 38a and 13:2):</span> If (a deer entered the house and) Reuven filled the doorway, and Shimon sat next to him, even if Reuven left and Shimon remained, Reuven is liable and Shimon is exempt. It is even permitted for Shimon.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH l'No'el):</span> Shimon is like one who had a deer in his house and the door was closed and it is guarded through this, and he locked the door. Even though he increased the guarding, it is permitted. We do not say that it is as if he trapped it, for had he not locked it, perhaps the door would have opened and the deer would have escaped. So too, Shimon may sit next to Reuven, since Reuven already filled the opening, even though after Reuven left it is guarded due to Shimon. Alternatively, if a deer was tied up in a house and one locked the door, even if the deer was later untied, we do not say that he must open his houseto let the deer out, since when he locked it it was permitted. Likewise, Shimon need not get up after Reuven leaves. The Rashba explains like this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (ibid., citing the Rashba):</span> It seems that the Yerushalmi permits to lock one's house to guard it, even if a deer is inside. Since he must guard his house, even though automatically the deer will be trapped, it is permitted, as long as he does not intend to guard just the deer. It teaches this with a Heter to raise a drowning child from the river on Shabbos and fish with him, and to excavate a fallen house to save someone and take gold coins at the same time.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ran):</span> How can we permit when he intends also to trap the deer? Will we permit a Melachah just because he needs to lock his house? I say that even if he did not intend to lock for the sake of the deer, but he knows that it is there and it will surely be trapped, it is forbidden. In all of Shabbos we say that R. Shimon (who permits something that one does not intend for) admits about a Pesik Reishei (an inevitable consequence. It is as if he intended.) The Yerushalmi means that if he did not intend to trap the deer at all, and later he found out that it is inside, he need not open the house. We support this from saving the child or excavating the house. They are not identical. There, he intends for Heter along with Piku'ach Nefesh. The Bavli says like this in Yoma (84b). Since the Melachah is an obligatory Mitzvah upon him, even if he intends for another Melachah with it, and the latter is forbidden on Shabbos, Chachamim permitted lest he refrain from Piku'ach Nefesh obligatory on him. Heaven forbid that we would permit an Isur along with a Melachah of Reshus! This is why regarding the deer the Yerushalmi says 'he intended to lock it (his house) and he locked it and in front of the deer.' Regarding the child it says 'he intended to raise him and to raise...' They are brought together because in both cases a forbidden Melachah is done with a permitted Melachah, but they are not the same principle.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shiltei ha'Giborim (Shabbos 38a):</span> The Rashba holds that even though a Pesik Reishei is forbidden, when one does a permitted act with it and intends also for the Heter, it is permitted even if he also intends for the inevitable consequence. I wrote that if something can be done without a Pesik Reishei, it is permitted even if he does it with a Pesik Reishei. This follows from a Kal va'Chomer from the Rashba.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 10:23):</span> If a deer entered a house and one locked the door, he is liable. If two people locked the door, they are exempt. If one could not lock it and two people locked it, they are liable. If Reuven sat and filled the doorway, and Shimon sat next to him, even if Reuven left, he is liable and Shimon did not do anything. Shimon may remain there until evening and take the deer. He is like one who looked his house to guard the contents, and a deer was found guarded inside. He did not do anything.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Ramban says that the Tosefta connotes that he locked his house to guard it, and did not know at all that there is a deer inside, and not it is guarded inside. He may leave it locked until night. The same applies if he sat in the opening, and a deer was found to be inside. He may stay there, for the trapping preceded the intent. The Rashba says that the Yerushalmi connotes that it is permitted even if he intends for both. One should not be so lenient.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 316:5):</span> If a deer entered a house and one locked the door, he is liable.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avnei Nezer (OC 192):</span> He is liable even for closing the door without locking it. This is logical. Even though 'Na'al' always connotes that with a lock, like the Yerushalmi says, the Rashba and Ran say that it is trapped merely through closing the door. Also Zevachim 55a says that closed is *like* locked. This shows that they are different. If the Mishnah means 'closed', why does it say 'locked'? It seems that regarding a deer, which cannot open a closed door, it is as if it is locked.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Chayav):</span> He is liable only if he knew at the time the locked it that there is a deer inside. If he found out only later, he is exempt. This is like one who intended to pick up detached Peros, and he cut attached Peros. This is Ohnes. Later he may intend not to open it until evening. The same applies when he sat in the opening unaware that there is a deer inside, for he did not intend for the deer until later. A Tosefta clearly says so. I do not know why the Rashba was unsure about this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If the door was already closed, one may lock it with a lock.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (23):</span> Since it cannot escape, locking it is merely guarding it. It is not trapping, for it is already trapped.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (6):</span> If Reuven sat and filled the doorway, Shimon may sit next to him. Even if Reuven left, Shimon is exempt and permitted, and Reuven is liable.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos Yom Tov (Shabbos 13:7 DH Af):</span> We must say that Reuven entered the house. If not, not, how can Shimon fill the place without there being an empty space in between? When there is a space, the deer is not trapped, so when Shimon returns and fills the opening, he traps the deer, and he would be liable!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Magen Avraham 11):</span> If one has a chicken in his house, and a door was opened, is it forbidden to close it?! Surely it is permitted! We must say that since it was already trapped, it is permitted. The same applies here. Rashi says that he is like one who merely guards a deer that he had from yesterday. I say that the Ran's words deceived him. The Ran only intended to say that when he merely increases guarding it is permitted, and all the more so when he does not increase anything. The Ran held that the Mishnah would not need to teach this. When he said that the deer was tied and one locked the door, this is when it was not yet locked when the deer was tied.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (40):</span> The Magen Avraham connotes that if the house was once locked after the deer was tied, even if later both were opened, he may lock the house again. The Acharonim refuted this from the Tosefta that obligates one who locks it again even if the deer was previously trapped.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (25):</span> It is permitted when Shimon does not move at all when Reuven left, e.g. Reuven entered the  house, or Shimon was in the space of the opening from the inside and Reuven was in the space of the opening from the outside, and left. Shimon may remain, for he did not do a new act. He merely guards a deer that was already trapped. If Shimon was on the outside and he needed to move to allow Reuven to leave, the deer ceased to be trapped, and if Shimon returns to his place he is liable for trapping. One may not lock his house if he knows that there is a deer inside, even if he does not intend to trap it, for it is a Pesik Reishei and the Torah forbids it, and all the more so if he intends also to trap it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (41):</span> One may not close a room if there is a cat inside (that will be trapped).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (43):</span> The Ramban permits sitting next to Reuven even if he intends to guard the deer.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Yashav):</span> If one forgot that it is Shabbos or that trapping is forbidden and sat in the opening, and later remembered, I am unsure if he may stay there until dark. He already transgressed, and leaving will not fix this. The Rashba said 'since he did not transgress mid'Oraisa' implies that if he transgressed mid'Oraisa, he may not stay there.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) SLAUGHTERING A KORBAN BEFORE THE DOORS OF THE HEICHAL OPEN FOR THE DAY</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Shmuel who states that if one slaughters a Korban Shelamim in the morning before the doors of the Heichal open for the day, the Korban is Pasul. Does this law apply specifically, for some reason, to a Korban Shelamim, or does it apply to all Korbanos, and Shmuel mentions Korban Shelamim only as an example?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (61a, end of DH u'Shnei Mekomos) writes that Shmuel means that only a Shelamim is Pasul when it is slaughtered before the doors of the Heichal open, but no other Korban is Pasul when it is slaughtered at that time, since the verse which the Gemara cites as the reason for this law specifically discusses a Korban Shelamim. The <b>MEFARESH</b> in Nazir (45a, DH Tanu Rabanan) explains that the logic behind the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is that the Shelamim is purely a 'present' from a person to Hash-m, unlike other Korbanos (which either provide atonement, like an Olah, even though it may be offered voluntarily, or are brought to express a specific form of gratitude, such as a Todah). Therefore, the doors of the Heichal must be open when the Shelamim is slaughtered.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kodem) asserts that Shmuel's statement applies to all Korbanos. Tosfos challenges Rashi's explanation from the Mishnah in Tamid (30b), which states that the Kohen does not slaughter the morning Korban Tamid until he hears that the door has been opened. Tosfos rejects the possibility that the Mishnah in Tamid refers to an enactment of the Rabanan, because the verse, 'Zos ha'Torah' (Vayikra 7:37), lists many of the specific types of Korbanos and provides a Hekesh for learning laws from one to another (see, for example, applications of this Hekesh on 4b and 97b). Accordingly, this law should apply mid'Oraisa to all Korbanos, based on the Hekesh.
</p><p>
Tosfos continues that it is not possible that the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is teaching only a l'Chatchilah requirement. The Gemara in Yoma (62b) says that if one slaughters a Shelamim ba'Chutz (outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash) before the doors of the Heichal are opened in the morning, he is exempt from liability for the sin of Shechutei Chutz. If the requirement to slaughter the Korban when the doors are open would be only l'Chatchilah, it would not make sense that one would be exempt from liability for Shechutei Chutz merely because of a Halachah l'Chatchilah. In fact, the Gemara later (109a) teaches that when a Korban which is Pasul mid'Oraisa is slaughtered outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, one still may be liable for Shechutei Chutz even if the Pesul is one for which the Korban would <i>not</i> be taken down if placed on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> answers the first question of Tosfos on Rashi, that this law should apply to all Korbanos because of the Hekesh in the verse 'Zos ha'Torah.' Tosfos earlier (50a, DH Im Al Todah) writes that this Hekesh may be used only when the law can apply to all of the Korbanos listed in the verse. Since the verse mentions the Korban Minchah, which has no Shechitah, the law that a Korban must be slaughtered after the doors of the Heichal are open cannot be applied to all of the Korbanos listed in the verse, since it does not apply to the Korban Minchah. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> to Yoma 29a, DH Ela.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) BLOOD BECOMES UNFIT FOR 'ZERIKAH' AT SUNSET</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara states that blood becomes disqualified for Zerikah at the arrival of Sheki'as ha'Chamah, sunset. This law is derived from the verse, 'b'Yom Hakrivo Es Zivcho Ye'achel' -- 'he may eat it on the day that it is offered' (Vayikra 7:16), which teaches that on the same day that one slaughters the Korban, he should bring the blood close, and on the day that one does not slaughter, he should not bring the blood close.
</p><p>
How exactly does this Derashah teach that blood becomes disqualified at Sheki'as ha'Chamah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH ba'Yom) explains that the Gemara means that one must perform Shechitah and Zerikah only on one day, and he may not leave the blood on the Mizbe'ach overnight in order to perform Zerikah the next day.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Minayin) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. Tosfos says that it is obvious that Zerikah may not be done at night, since the verse says, 'ba'Yom Tzavoso' -- 'on the <i>day</i> he was commanded' (Vayikra 7:38). Why, then, would one think that he may do Zerikah the following day? Tosfos says that one might have thought that just as one is not Chayav for Pigul or Nosar when he eats the blood of a Korban that is Pigul or Nosar (although he is Chayav for the prohibition against eating blood), he also may perform the Zerikah of the blood the following day. However, Tosfos rejects this reasoning, because the law is that wood and incense -- which become sanctified when placed in a Kli Shares -- become Pasul due to Linah even though there is no applicable prohibition of Nosar (see 46b, according to Rebbi Shimon). Moreover, if this would have been the point of the Gemara, the Gemara would have asked, 'What is the source that blood becomes Pasul through Linah,' and not, 'What is the source that blood becomes Pasul at Sheki'as ha'Chamah?'
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains instead that the Gemara is teaching an entirely different Halachah. Tosfos maintains that when the Gemara mentions the term 'Sheki'as ha'Chamah,' it usually refers to Tzeis ha'Kochavim, the appearance of the stars, which, according to Tosfos, occurs 72 minutes after sunset. Without the Gemara's Derashah from the verse, one would know that blood becomes Pasul for Zerikah at Tzeis ha'Kochavim. The Gemara derives from the verse of 'b'Yom Hakrivo' that the blood becomes Pasul even before that time, at <i>sunset</i>. This is why the Gemara says that the blood is Pasul because of Sheki'as ha'Chamah, and not because of Linah.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> answers the question of Tosfos on Rashi from the law regarding wood and incense. Wood and incense are not consumable, and therefore they obviously are not included in the prohibitions of Pigul and Nosar, which apply only to edible entities. Blood, on the other hand, is edible, but is prohibited. The fact that the Torah does not make additional prohibitions of Pigul and Nosar for blood is valid grounds to justify performing Zerikah the next day, if not for the verse of 'b'Yom Hakrivo.'
</p><p>
The Yad Binyamin adds that the fact that the Gemara says that the blood is Pasul because of Sheki'as ha'Chamah and not because of Linah is not problematic according to Rashi, because the Gemara gives the earliest practical time at which the blood becomes Pasul for Zerikah due to Linah. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> THE LAST TIME TO PRAY MINCHAH <span class='indexentry'>[Minchah: time]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi):</span> What is the source that blood becomes Pasul at Shki'as ha'Chamah?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> 'B'Yom Hakrivo Es Zivcho Ye'achel' - you may offer (the blood) only on the same day of the Shechitah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 26b (Beraisa):</span> One may pray Minchah until Erev (evening), the latest time for the afternoon Tamid;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	R. Yehudah permits (only) until Plag ha'Minchah, the latest time for the afternoon Tamid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> One may pray until Plag ha'Minchah, i.e. 10 and three quarters hours.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	27a (Rav Chisda):</span> Rav used to pray Ma'ariv of Shabbos on Erev Shabbos before dark. This shows that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah! (According to Chachamim, it is still the time for Minchah, so one may not pray Ma'ariv then!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> Rav Huna and Rabanan used to wait until dark to pray Ma'ariv. This shows that the Halachah follows Chachamim!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Conclusion:</span> Since the Halachah was not fixed like either opinion, one may follow either one.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Berachos 18b and 4:3):</span> The Halachah was not fixed like either opinion regarding Minchah, so one may follow either one.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Yonah:</span> Do not say that 'until Erev' means until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, which is truly night. Here, Erev means Shki'as ha'Chamah. We say in Zevachim that that blood is disqualified at Shki'as ha'Chamah (sunset). I.e. from Shki'ah and onwards is not the time for Zerikah of the afternoon Tamid. Tefilas Minchah corresponds to the afternoon Tamid. The primary (Avodah) of the Tamid is Zerikah! Just like Zerikah is only until Shki'ah, also Minchah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 3:4):</span> The time for Minchah Ketanah is from nine and a half hours until an hour and a quarter remain in the day. One may pray until Shki'as ha'Chamah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (3):</span> R. Chananel says that nowadays all of Yisrael follow Rabanan to pray Minchah until Erev, and R. Yosi in the Yerushalmi, that Minchah is not equated to the afternoon Tamid, rather, to the Ketores - 'Tikon Tefilasi Ketores Lefanecha.' Rebbi (Eliezer) said that a Tefilah that is Keva is not supplication. Some say that this is one who does not pray Im Dimdumei Chamah (when the sun is setting). R. Yochanan said that it is a Mitzvah to pray then - 'Yira'ucha Im Shemesh (v'Lifnei Yare'ach).' Even though in Eretz Yisrael they cursed (those who rule like this) (Berachos 29b), this is only if one delays more than this. Slightly before sunset is fine. The Yerushalmi says that R. Yosi used to pray Im Dimdumei Chamah - 'Al Zos Yispalel Kol Chasid Elecha l'Es Metzo', i.e. l'Es Metzo of the day (when it ends).  Even though the time for Minchah is from six and a half hours until the end of the day, it is better from Minchah Ketanah and onwards, as long as he does not delay too long. R. Tam says that we hold like Rav, who prayed (Ma'ariv) of Shabbos on Erev Shabbos, and the same applies to during the week.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam says 'until an hour and a quarter remain in the day', i.e. until Erev, like Chachamim, who say that Minchah is until Erev. Why didn't he say 'until Shki'ah'? Rather, it seems that he holds like the Rosh said in the name of a Gaon, that one who prays Ma'ariv (after Plag ha'Minchah) may pray Minchah only until Plag ha'Minchah, for one may not do sometimes like Chachamim and sometimes like R. Yehudah. The Rambam allows until one and a quarter hours remain, like R. Yehudah. He concludes that if one wants to hold like the first Tana, he may pray until Shki'as ha'Chamah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (8):</span> Avi ha'Ezri says that one who wants to follow Chachamim may pray Minchah until Erev, i.e. until Shki'as ha'Chamah, which is Tzeis ha'Kochavim. He may not pray Ma'ariv or read Kri'as Shema until after Tzeis ha'Kochavim. One cannot pray Minchah and Ma'ariv between Plag ha'Minchah and Tzeis ha'Kochavim. Regarding Minchah this is like the Ge'onim, who rule like Chachamim, and regarding Ma'ariv it is like R. Tam, who rules like R. Yehudah. One who does like R. Tam is not Yotzei Kri'as Shema according to the Ge'onim. One who does like the Ge'onim is Yotzei (everything) according to R. Tam, for he agrees that one may follow either opinion. In any case, our custom is like R. Tam. Avi ha'Ezri says that it is haughtiness to be stringent like the Ge'onim, for this is not our custom, unless he is a Parush and is meticulous also about other Mitzvos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> A Gaon wrote that one who prays Ma'ariv early may pray Minchah only until Plag ha'Minchah, like R. Yehudah. The Halachah follows R. Yehudah or Chachamim, but not both of them! Therefore, if one prays Minchah (after Plag ha'Minchah) until evening, he may not pray Ma'ariv after Plag ha'Minchah (before dark), for one cannot do once like R. Yehudah and once like Chachamim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yonah (18b DH d'Avad):</span> One should not act in a way that contradicts himself. Since our custom is to pray Minchah after Plag ha'Minchah like Chachamim, we may not pray Ma'ariv before Shki'ah like R. Yehudah. Rather, we must do totally like Chachamim. However, b'Di'eved if one prayed after Plag ha'Minchah with intent to to be Yotzei Ma'ariv, he was Yotzei. We do not obligate him to pray again.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (1:1):</span> We sometimes pray Minchah after Plag ha'Minchah, like Chachamim. Regarding Kri'as Shema, we consider this time to be night, like R. Yehudah. These are contradictory leniencies! The Gemara says that one may follow either one, i.e. one may always do like R. Yehudah, or always like Rabanan. One may not adopt the leniencies of both! We can say that regarding Tefilah, they were lenient. R. Tam says that Minchah is until Plag ha'Minchah, for the Tamid was offered until then, but regarding Kri'as Shema (one is Yotzei only at night) for people do not lie down then (from Plag ha'Minchah, until night). I disagree. To justify our custom is, we can say that we rely on other Tana'im who say that the time for Kri'as Shema is before Tzeis ha'Kochavim. We are lenient about Tefilah. Also, it is pressed circumstances. The Tzibur gathers for Minchah, and if they would not say Shema and pray until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, everyone would go home, and it would be an exertion to gather again later, and they would not pray with a Tzibur. Rav Hai Gaon says that if the Tzibur prays Ma'ariv before Tzeis ha'Kochavim, one should pray with the Tzibur, and say Kri'as Shema afterwards. However, one who does so must be careful not to pray Minchah after Plag ha'Minchah, since he considers this time night regarding Ma'ariv.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (56a DH Minayin):</span> For all other laws of the Torah, the day ends later, at Tzeis ha'Kochavim. Zerikah is different. It seems that Rashi holds that also here, Shki'as ha'Chamah refers to the end of Shki'ah, i.e. Tzeis ha'Kochavim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Shabbos 455):</span> Blood is disqualified at the beginning of Shki'ah, at least mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 233:1):</span> The time for Minchah is until night according to Rabanan, and according to R. Yehudah it is until Plag ha'Minchah, i.e. 10 and three quarters hours.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> The Shulchan Aruch permits until night. Really, it is until about a quarter hour earlier, for this is Bein ha'Shemashos, and all agree that one may not pray Minchah then.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (4):</span> Shiltei ha'Giborim said that Minchah is only until Shki'ah. Sha'agas Aryeh says that it is until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, and the Rema explicitly says so below.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (5):</span> The custom in Yerushalayim is not to pray Minchah from when the crow cries, which is 11 minutes after Shki'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> We calculate these hours based on 12 hours in the day, even if it is a long day.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (4):</span> Some say that the 12 hours are from dawn until Tzeis ha'Kochavim. If so, R. Yehudah permits until one and a quarter hours before Tzeis ha'Kochavim, and Chachamim permit until Tzeis ha'Kochavim. The Shulchan Aruch holds like this.  Some say that the 12 hours are from sunrise until sunset. If so, R. Yehudah permits until one and a quarter hours before sunset, and Chachamim permit until sunset.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> We concluded that one may follow either opinion. One must consistently follow one opinion. If he follows Rabanan and prays Minchah until night, he may not pray Ma'ariv after Plag ha'Minchah. If he follows R. Yehudah and prays Ma'ariv from Plag ha'Minchah, he must be careful not to pray Minchah at that time. Nowadays the custom is to pray Minchah until night, so one may not pray Ma'ariv before Shki'ah. B'Di'eved, if one prayed Ma'ariv after Plag ha'Minchah, he was Yotzei. In pressed circumstances, one may pray Ma'ariv after Plag ha'Minchah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Hu):</span> Also Ohel Mo'ed says in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that one must consistently follow one opinion. He cites Ba'al ha'Hashlamah to say that nowadays, due to pressed circumstances the practice is to sometimes follow R. Yehudah and sometimes Rabanan. This is acceptable. It is no worse than one who rises early to travel. He may recite (Shema) earlier than the normal time. R. Yonah is stringent. Nowadays, people are lenient. Even though they pray Ma'ariv after Plag ha'Minchah, they do not refrain from praying Ma'ariv in the same time period, even though the leniencies contradict each other. They rely on what the Rosh wrote (1:1) according to R. Tam. Also the Rashba says that we are lenient about Tefilah. The Rosh rejected R. Tam, and he concluded that if one does like Rav Hai Gaon and prays Ma'ariv with a Tzibur before Tzeis ha'Kochavim, he may not pray Minchah after Plag ha'Minchah, since he considers this night regarding Ma'ariv. Even so, people rely on R. Tam.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> When the Mechaber says 'Shki'ah', he means the end of Shki'ah, i.e. shortly before Tzeis ha'Kochavim. Really, he should not pray until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, for before then is Safek night. The Mechaber was not particular to be precise, for it is a small difference.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (9):</span> A woman need not be concerned about contradictory leniencies. Since she is busy with needs of the house, it is like pressed circumstances for her.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</span> Olas Tamid says that a Chasid should pray Minchah before Plag ha'Minchah, and Ma'ariv after Tzeis ha'Kochavim, to fulfill both opinions. I say that the best time for Minchah is after Plag ha'Minchah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> In these lands we pray Ma'ariv from Plag ha'Minchah, so one may not pray Minchah afterwards. B'Di'eved, or in pressed circumstances, one was Yotzei if he prayed Minchah until night, i.e. until Tzeis ha'Kochavim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Darchei Moshe ha'Aruch (1):</span> In pressed circumstances, Maharil used to pray Minchah close to Tzeis ha'Kochavim. He said that even though it appears to be night in the city, it is still day, like R. Yosi said (Shabbos 118b) 'may my portion be among those who bring in Shabbos early in Tiverya.' This is only in a city in which the houses are tall, or it is in a valley. (It gets dark early, and people accept Shabbos then. This is Midas Chasidus, for really, it is still day - PF.) Nowadays, the custom is to pray Minchah and Ma'ariv next to each other. We hold like Chachamim; we pray Ma'ariv before night due to the difficulty of gathering people a second time. The Tur (Siman 235) says so. If an individual did not pray Ma'ariv with the Tzibur, he should wait until night.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Im):</span> Even though the Rosh disagreed with R. Tam, b'Di'eved or in pressed circumstances one may rely on R. Tam. All agree that Minchah ends at the first time for Ma'ariv.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (11):</span> In pressed circumstances, one who normally prays Minchah after Plag ha'Minchah may be lenient to pray Ma'ariv at this time, but only if today he prayed Minchah beforehand. If not, he contradicts himself regarding this very day! This is for an individual. If a Tzibur prayed Minchah, and if they would go home it would be hard to gather them again, and Tefilah b'Tzibur would be totally Batel, Acharonim were lenient to permit Ma'ariv close to Minchah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (14):</span> Even though the Shulchan Aruch and Rema connote that that we, who pray Ma'ariv after Tzeis ha'Kochavim, may pray Minchah until Tzeis ha'Kochavim, many Poskim say that Minchah is only until Shki'ah. Therefore, everyone must be careful to finish his Tefilah before the sun leaves our view. It is better to pray Minchah alone in the time than afterwards with a Tzibur. B'Di'eved, one may rely on the lenient opinions to pray after Shki'ah until a quarter hour before Tzeis ha'Kochavim. One must pray as soon as possible to avoid a Safek Bein ha'Shemashos. If stars can be seen, surely the time already passed. In Eretz Yisrael they cursed one who prays Im Dimdumei Chamah, lest he not pray in time.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (12):</span> The Ari Zal would pray Minchah close to sunset, and Ma'ariv shortly after, so that all three Tefilos are during the day. He relied on R. Tam.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH d'Hainu):</span> B'Di'eved, if one prays after Shki'ah, he should stipulate that if it is still day, this is Minchah, and what he prays after Tzeis ha'Kochavim is Ma'ariv. If it is already night, this is Ma'ariv, and what he prays later is Tashlmumin (compensation) for Minchah.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE UNIQUE LAWS OF THE 'KORBAN PESACH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah records four unique laws of the Korban Pesach: It is eaten only for one night, it is eaten only until midnight, it is eaten only by those who, before it was brought, became members of the group offering the Korban, and it is eaten only roasted.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH ha'Pesach) asks that the Mishnah omits one other important unique law of the Korban Pesach -- that it may be eaten only with Matzah and Maror. Why does the Mishnah omit this law?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers in the name of <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> that the Mishnah lists only the laws which pertain to other Kodshim as well, but in a different way. For example, the Korban Pesach may be eaten only until midnight, while most other Korbanos may be eaten for one or two days. In contrast, Matzah and Maror are not applicable to any other Korban, and therefore the Mishnah does not mention it.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that the Mishnah lists only laws that are Me'akev, that prevent the fulfillment of the Mitzvah. Failure to eat Matzah and Maror with the Korban Pesach is not Me'akev the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of eating the Korban Pesach.
</p><p>
(c) In his third answer, Tosfos states that the Mishnah mentions only differences which involve the meat of the Korban Pesach itself, not differences which involve external items such as Matzah and Maror.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> adds a fourth answer. He explains that the Torah requires only that one eat a k'Zayis of meat of the Korban Pesach with Matzah and Maror, but not the entire Korban. The Mishnah lists only laws which apply to all of the meat of the Korban. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE THAT THE LOAVES OF 'LACHMEI TODAH' MUST BE COMPRISED OF AN 'ISARON'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the word 'Tavi'u' -- 'you shall bring' (Vayikra 23:17), written with regard to the Shtei ha'Lechem, that other offerings should be similar to the Shtei ha'Lechem. Just as the Shtei ha'Lechem should have an Isaron for each Chalah, other similar Korbanos should have an Isaron for each Chalah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Hainu) explains that although the Torah specifies that the Lachmei Todah should have ten Chalos of each type of Chalah, it does not mention how much flour should be used for each Chalah. The Gemara therefore teaches that the ten Chalos of the Lachmei Todah, which are loaves of Chametz, should be compared to the Shtei ha'Lechem, which are also Chametz. Just as each loaf of the Shtei ha'Lechem is comprised of an Isaron, each loaf of the Chalos Chametz of a Korban Todah should be comprised of an Isaron.
</p><p>
What is the source that the loaves of the Lachmei Todah that are <i>not</i> Chametz also must be comprised of an Isaron? The Gemara derives this from the verse, 'Al Chalos Lechem Chametz Yakriv Korbano' -- 'with loaves of bread that is Chametz he shall bring his Korban' (Vayikra 7:13). Since the previous verse mentions the three types of Chalos of the Todah which are not Chametz, and the Torah then states that that they are brought along with the Chalos which are Chametz, the Torah is teaching that just as the Chalos of Chametz are comprised of an Isaron, the Chalos of Matzah are also comprised of an Isaron. Rashi adds (DH Lamadnu) that the source that there are ten Chalos of Chametz for the Korban Todah is a Gezeirah Shavah from Terumas Ma'aser.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hainu) asks that if a Gezeirah Shavah from Terumas Ma'aser teaches that there are ten Chalos of Chametz, then how a Hekesh be used to compare the ten Chalos of Matzah to the ten Chalos of Chametz? In order to make a Hekesh from the ten Chalos of Chametz, the Torah must mention the ten Chalos of Chametz explicitly. How can the Gemara learn laws of the ten Chalos of Matzah from the laws of the ten Chalos of Chametz which are not mentioned explicitly?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that in this case the Gemara maintains that something derived from a Gezeirah Shavah may then be used to teach something else through a Hekesh. The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> explains that although the Gemara earlier (50a) does not resolve the question of whether a Gezeirah Shavah and a Hekesh may be used in this way, Tosfos understands, for some reason, that they may be used in this way.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that although a law derived through a Gezeirah Shavah may <i>not</i> be derived to something else through a Hekesh, this applies only when the Gezeirah Shavah is learned from Kodshim. Terumas Ma'aser, however, is considered Chulin, and therefore the Gemara may learn a law from Terumas Ma'aser to Chalos of Chametz through a Gezeirah Shavah, and then from Chalos of Chametz to Chalos of Matzah through a Hekesh.
</p><p>
(c) In his third answer, Tosfos points out that some texts of the Gemara in Menachos (77b) understand that the word, 'Tiheyenah' -- 'they shall be' (Vayikra 23:17), contains an extra letter Yud. This extra letter teaches that there should be <i>ten</i> Chalos of each of the loaves of the Lachmei Todah. (See Tosfos to Menachos 78a, DH Amar Rav Yitzchak, with regard to reconciling the teaching from the word 'Tiheyenah' with the Gezeirah Shavah from Terumas Ma'aser.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: BY WHAT TIME MUST ONE EAT THE 'AFIKOMAN' ON PESACH NIGHT?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who maintains that the Korban Pesach may be eaten only until Chatzos, midnight. This is in contrast to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that the Korban Pesach may be eaten the entire night. In Pesachim (120a), Rava states that one who eats Matzah after Chatzos nowadays (when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash and no Korban Pesach) does not fulfill the Mitzvah of eating Matzah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah's opinion applies not only to the Mitzvah to eat Matzah but also to the Mitzvah d'Rabanan to eat the Afikoman, which is eaten in commemoration of the Korban Pesach. What is the Halachah in practice?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Iba'is Eima) writes that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Since Rebbi recorded three Mishnayos in accordance with the view of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah (the Mishnah here, the Mishnah in Pesachim 120b, and the first Mishnah in Berachos, as explained by the Gemara in Berachos 9a), and did not even mention the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, presumably the Halachah follows his opinion. Tosfos adds that for this reason, people must be careful to eat the Matzah before Chatzos, in accordance with the statement of Rava in Pesachim (120b, as mentioned above). This is also the opinion of the <b>SEMAG</b> in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b>, the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> ZARU'A</b>, <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>MORDECHAI</b> in Pesachim, and others.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b>, <b>BA'AL HA'ITUR</b>, the <b><b><b>RI</b></b> MI'KORVIL</b> (cited by the Or Zaru'a) and others rule like Rebbi Akiva, based primarily on the Gemara's rule that 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chaveiro' -- 'the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva over his colleague' (but not over his <i>colleagues</i>, when more than one Tana argues with him). Since only one Tana argues with Rebbi Akiva in this case, the Halachah should follow the view of Rebbi Akiva.
</p><p>
In addition, the Mishnah in Megilah (20b) implies that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva. The Mishnah there says that 'any Mitzvah which is supposed to be done at night, may be done the entire night.' The Gemara there (21a) explains that the Mishnah's intent is to teach that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva, and not the view of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.
</p><p>
However, the <b>LIKUTEI HALACHOS</b> points out that the other Rishonim, such as Tosfos, understand that since the Mishnah here and in Pesachim -- which are the primary Mishnayos that deal with the subject of the Korban Pesach -- follow the view of Rebbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, the Halachah follows those Mishnayos and not the Mishnah in Megilah, which discusses the general issue of the time at which one should perform Mitzvos done at night.
</p><p>
(c) A number of Rishonim, such as the <b>ROKE'ACH</b>, <b>ROSH</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, and <b>RAN</b>, are in doubt about the Halachah. Therefore, they rule that, out of doubt, one should be stringent and eat the Matzah before Chatzos.
</p><p>
The <b>KESAV SOFER</b> (in his Hagadah) answers an apparent contradiction in the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b>. The Shulchan Aruch rules (OC 477:1) that one should be careful to eat the Afikoman before Chatzos. However, the Shulchan Aruch also rules (OC 481:2) that one is obligated to delve into the Halachos of Korban Pesach and discuss Yetzi'as Mitzrayim 'until he is overcome by sleep.' The Kesav Sofer points out that the Mitzvah of Sipur Yetzi'as Mitzrayim applies only 'b'Sha'ah she'Yesh Matzah u'Maror Munachim Lefanecha' -- 'at a time when Matzah and Maror are placed before you.' This means that the time to fulfill the Mitzvah of Sipur Yetzi'as Mitzrayim is the same time at which there is a Mitzvah to eat Matzah and Maror. Accordingly, once Chatzos has arrived, there should be no Mitzvah of Sipur Yetzi'as Mitzrayim according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Since the Shulchan Aruch rules like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah earlier (OC 477:1), why does he not write (OC 481:2) that a person should discuss Yetzi'as Mitzrayim '*until Chatzos* or until he is overcome by sleep'?
</p><p>
The Kesav Sofer answers that it must be that the Shulchan Aruch follows the view of the Rishonim who are in doubt about whom the Halachah follows, and therefore he rules stringently that the Matzah must be eaten before Chatzos (like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah) and that Sipur Yetzi'as Mitzrayim should continue throughout the night (like Rebbi Akiva).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> understands that Rebbi Akiva agrees that one is forbidden l'Chatchilah to delay the Mitzvah of eating Matzah until after Chatzos. Accordingly, everyone agrees that one should eat the Matzah before Chatzos, l'Chatchilah. This is also the conclusion of the Likutei Halachos here. (See also <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> OC 477 DH v'Yehei Zahir.)
</p><p>
(e) Many people rely on the suggestion of the <b>AVNEI NEZER</b> (OC 381), who proposed a way to circumvent the doubt about when one must finish eating the Afikoman. This is known as the 'Tenai of the Avnei Nezer.' How exactly to make this condition, and whether or not it works, is the subject of much discussion among the Poskim. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ONE MUST EAT MATZAH AND THE AFIKOMAN BEFORE MIDNIGHT <span class='indexentry'>[Pesach: Matzah: time]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span>  Pesach is eaten only... (until midnight).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yosef):</span> Our Mishnah is like R. Elazar ben Azaryah;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</span> It says that Pesach is eaten 'ba'Laylah ha'Zeh', like it says about Makas Bechoros. Just like that was at midnight, also Pesach may be eaten until midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Akiva:</span> It says that Pesach is eaten 'b'Chipazon' (in haste), i.e. until Yisrael were rushed out of Mitzrayim (in the morning)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Abaye):</span> Perhaps our Mishnah is R. Akiva. Chachamim decreed not to eat it past midnight, lest one eat it after dawn (like they decreed about all Korbanos eaten until morning)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Yosef):</span> The Mishnah says 'Ela (only) it is eaten only until midnight', just like it says about the other laws of Pesach, to teach that also this is mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 96a (Mishnah):</span> Pesach Mitzrayim was eaten hastily in one night.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	119a (Mishnah):</span> Afikoman (dessert) is forbidden after eating Korban Pesach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #1 (Shmuel):</span> (Nowadays, we eat Matzah at the end to commemorate the Pesach, which was eaten at the end, with Matzah (according to Hillel).) We may not eat after this Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Mishnah):</span> We may not have Afikoman after Pesach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Afikoman is forbidden after Pesach, but it is permitted after Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> No, the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush. Matzah's taste is not so strong, so we may not eat after it (lest the taste of Matzah not remain in our mouths). One might have thought that one may eat after Pesach, for its taste is strong, and it would remain in our mouths! The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #2 - Mar Zutra - (Shmuel):</span> We may have Afikoman after Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (Mishnah):</span> We may not have Afikoman after Pesach (but it is permitted after Matzah).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> No, the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush. Dessert is forbidden not only after Matzah, whose taste is not strong; rather, it is forbidden even after Pesach, whose taste is strong!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	120b (Mishnah):</span> Pesach is Metamei the hands after midnight.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yosef):</span> This is like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. (He holds that after midnight it is Nosar.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> Nowadays, according to R. Elazar, if someone ate Matzah after midnight, he was not Yotzei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> This is obvious! Since Matzah is Hukash (equated) to Pesach, it is like Pesach!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> One might have thought that the Torah uprooted it from the Hekesh (by commanding to eat Matzah even when there is no Pesach). Rava teaches that this is not so. The Mitzvah to eat Matzah nowadays is like when there is Pesach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 2a (Mishnah):</span> Any Korban that may be eaten for one day and a night is permitted until dawn.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	9a (Rav Yosef):</span> The Mishnah does not mention that (mid'Oraisa) the Korban Pesach may be eaten until dawn. It is like R. Elazar ben Azaryah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	Megilah 20b (Mishnah):</span> Every nighttime Mitzvah is Kosher the entire night.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	21a:</span> This includes eating Korban Pesach. It is unlike R. Elazar ben Azaryah:</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 27a and Rosh 10:34):</span> Presumably, the Halachah follows Version #1, for it is the Stam Gemara, whereas Version #2 is the opinion of an individual. This is our custom.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz 6:1):</span> It is a Torah Mitzvah to eat Matzah on the night of the 15th. It does not depend on Korban Pesach. The Mitzvah is the entire night.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (8:9):</span> Nowadays he eats a k'Zayis of Matzah at the end and he does not taste anything afterwards.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (38):</span> Seemingly, the Halachah follows R. Elazar, for Stam Mishnayos in Pesachim, Zevachim and Berachos are like him. However, the Stam Mishnah in Megilah is like R. Akiva. Two or three Stam Mishnayos are no stronger than one. Also, the Mishnah in Megilah was taught with clearcut Halachah. However, one should be stringent like R. Elazar, for perhaps R. Akiva agrees that we make a fence to distance from an Isur mid'Oraisa. R. Tam would rush to eat the Afikoman before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (8:10):</span> The Mechilta says that we eat Pesach until dawn. Chachamim made a fence, and said until midnight. This is unlike R. Elazar ben Azaryah. Also the Mishnah (Megilah 20b) says that it is only a fence, and Rava said 'according to R. Elazar, if one ate Matzah after midnight, he was not Yotzei.' This connotes we hold like R. Akiva, that he was Yotzei. Also, the Halachah follows R. Akiva against his colleague. R. Simchah brought a proof from the Tosefta, which says that Matzah is an obligation. We eat from dark, the entire night. The Mitzvah is to eat before midnight, to stay far from Aveirah. Also others hold like this. However, Sefer ha'Mitzvos rules like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. Three Stam Mishnayos are like R. Elazar ben Azaryah, in Zevachim, Pesachim (120b), and Berachos 2a. Also Avi ha'Ezri rules like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. R. Simchah says that the Gemara in Berachos does not say 'the Mishnah omitted Pesach.' Rather, it brings a Beraisa that says that Keri'as Shema and Pesach are until midnight. Rav Yosef answers that the Beraisa is like R. Elazar, and our Mishnah (which holds that we eat Pesach until dawn) is like R. Akiva. Two Stam Mishnayos are like R. Elazar, and two are like R. Akiva. The beginning of our Masechta connotes like R. Akiva. (Perhaps he refers to Pesachim 3a, which says 'we learn from Kodshim eaten for one day, which are burned right after they are forbidden to eat (at dawn)' - PF.) Re'em says that one should be concerned for R. Elazar's opinion, for the Mishnah in Zevachim is like him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (27b DH Garsinan):</span> Yevamos 101b says that two or three Stam Mishnayos are no stronger than one, for we do not know which was taught last (i.e. Rebbi retracted and concluded like the Halachah. When Rebbi codified the Mishnayos, we do not know in which order he taught the different Masechtos.) Therefore, we are stringent like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. Tosfos is stringent to finish even Hallel before midnight. Others say that the Halachah follows R. Akiva. One should not be lenient about this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> I do not know why the Ran (and other Meforshim) cite Yevamos 101b. It says that if we follow Stam Mishnayos *against individuals*, it does not matter if there is one, two or three Stam Mishnayos. A better proof is from Kidushin 54b, which says that when there is a contradiction in Stam Mishnayos, two Stam Mishnayos are no stronger than one! Even though there it does not mention three Stam Mishnayos, the same applies to three. (The reason two are no better than one is because we do not know which was taught last.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Simchas Kohen (OC 141):</span> Why do the Meforshim say that only one Stam Mishnah is like R. Akiva? Tosfos Yom Tov derives that also Mishnah 9:5 (96a) is like R. Akiva! Perhaps we do not count this, for the last Mishnah in Pesachim (120b) is Stam, like R. Elazar. This shows that Rebbi retracted from what he held when he codified Mishnah 9:5.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> Seemingly, it is better to say that Rebbi retracted only once and concluded like R. Elazar, than to say that he initially held like R. Akiva (when he taught Pesachim 9:5), retracted (before teaching the last Mishnah), and retracted again and concluded like R. Akiva (in Megilah)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Pesachim 89a DH d'Ilu):</span> Our Gemara calls Pesach a Korban eaten for a day and a night (even though one may eat it only at night). If so, why did Rav Yosef say that the Mishnah (Berachos 2a) is like R. Elazar ben Azaryah, for it omitted Pesach? That Mishnah says 'all Korbanos eaten for a day and a night...'! Since a Mishnah in Zevachim says that Pesach is eaten (mid'Oraisa) only until midnight, if the Tana in Berachos disagrees, he should have explicitly taught Pesach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Zevachim 57b DH v'Ibo'is):</span> If 'until midnight' were mid'Rabanan for Pesach, it would have been taught at the end, like the Mishnayos of Chatas, Asham... Rather, it is mid'Oraisa, like the other laws taught with it (it is eaten only at night, only Manuyim may eat it, and it is eaten only roasted).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Pesachim 120b DH Amar):</span> Regarding Chatas and Todah it says 'they are eaten until midnight', i.e. l'Chatchilah, mid'Rabanan. Regarding Pesach it says '*only* until midnight, i.e. even b'Di'eved, for this is mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Megilah 21a DH Le'atuyei):</span> The Halachah follows R. Elazar. One must be careful to eat the Matzah before midnight, including the Afikoman, for Matzah is mid'Oraisa nowadays. One need not be so stringent to finish Hallel before midnight, for it is mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 477:1):</span> One must be careful to eat the Afikoman before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Le'acher):</span> The Tur and Ran require eating Matzas Mitzvah before midnight. The Rambam (6:1) says that the Mitzvah is the entire night.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Yehei):</span> Zevachim 57b shows that even R. Akiva holds that l'Chatchilah one must eat Afikoman before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (6):</span> One must eat the Afikoman before midnight, for it commemorates Korban Pesach, which was eaten before midnight. All the more so one must eat the first k'Zayis of Matzah on which we bless before midnight. If one delayed after midnight, perhaps he was not Yotzei. Therefore, after midnight he does not bless on it, nor on Maror, even though Maror is only mid'Rabanan nowadays.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (10):</span> Pischei Teshuvah was unsure if after midnight one may bless Ga'al Yisrael at the end of Magid, for the Magen Avraham says that it is only when Matzah, Maror and Pesach are in front of you, and perhaps these Mitzvos do not apply after midnight. One should bless without Hashem's name.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (12):</span> If one did not eat Afikoman before midnight, he eats it after midnight, for perhaps he fulfills the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> One should (eat it) early, so he will also recite Hallel before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (7):</span> L'Chatchilah, one should finish also the Berachah at the end of Hallel before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (14):</span> Since one must say Hallel while eating Pesach, this is a commemoration of Pesach just like Afikoman, so also Hallel should be before midnight. Medrash Tehilim (113:1) connotes that it is better to say Hallel *after* midnight. (Yisrael sang after Makos Bechoros, when they ceased to be Avdei Paro and became 'Avdei Hash-m.') The Zohar agrees. However, some are stringent l'Chatchilah (to say it before), so one should fulfill all opinions.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Yehei):</span> Some say that the Rif holds that the time for Matzah is the entire night, since he omitted Rava's teaching. However, many great Rishonim say that one is not Yotzei after midnight, others were unsure and said that one must be stringent, and others say that R. Akiva agrees that mid'Rabanan one must eat before midnight.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avnei Nezer (OC 381:5):</span> Surely, the obligation that the taste of Pesach remain in our mouths is only during the time of the Mitzvah. The same applies to the Afikoman. I.e., the opinion that requires eating it before midnight allows eating again after midnight. One may eat a k'Zayis of Matzah before midnight on condition that if the Halachah follows this opinion, this is the Afikoman, and he may eat more after midnight. To fulfill the other opinion, at the end of his meal he eats another k'Zayis on condition that if the Halachah follows the opinion that the Mitzvah applies the entire night, this is the Afikoman.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


