# dafyomi

lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) PERFORMING SHECHITAH ATOP THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses a Machlokes between Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah with regard to one who performs Shechitah at the top of the Mizbe'ach. They argue about which area on the Mizbe'ach is considered an appropriate place for Shechitah. The Mishnah does not mention that performing Shechitah atop the Mizbe'ach is an incorrect practice. Does this imply that one is permitted, l'Chatchilah, to perform Shechitah at the top of the Mizbe'ach?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kodshei) writes that the Torah permits such Shechitah even l'Chatchilah, as is apparent from the Gemara's source for this Halachah from the verse, 'v'Zavachta Alav Es Olosecha v'Es Shelamecha' -- 'and you shall slaughter <i>on it</i> your Olos and your Shelamim' (Shemos 20:21). The Gemara explains that both opinions in the Mishnah learn from here that the Mizbe'ach is a suitable place to slaughter Korbanos. The difference of opinion revolves around only which Korbanos may be slaughtered in which area of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, asks that the Mishnah uses the wording, 'she'Shachtu,' which implies that the Shechitah already took place and that the Mishnah is addressing a b'Di'eved situation. Tosfos concludes that perhaps the Rabanan maintain that one should not slaughter a Korban on the Mizbe'ach, l'Chatchilah, in order that the animal not defecate on the Mizbe'ach (which would be disrespectful).
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> and <b>DIVREI NECHEMYAH</b> have difficulty with the words of Tosfos. Why does Tosfos need to speculate that there is a Gezeirah d'Rabanan that the animal not be slaughtered on the Mizbe'ach lest it defecate there? The Mishnah later (84a) states that an Olah offering that went up to the Mizbe'ach while alive should be brought back down (and not be slaughtered there). The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:4) explains that this is because the live animal, in its present state, is not yet considered fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach. Why does Tosfos not give this as the reason for why the Mishnah says that a live animal should not be slaughtered on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah?
</p><p>
The Divrei Nechemyah suggests that Tosfos perhaps maintains that the Mishnah later (84a) means that one is <i>permitted</i> to bring the Korban down from the Mizbe'ach, in contrast to the things listed there in the Mishnah which are not permitted to be brought down once they have been placed on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> on the verse (Shemos 20:21) seems to argue that the Torah does not condone Shechitah on the Mizbe'ach. Rashi states that the word 'Alav' in the verse means 'next to' the Mizbe'ach and not 'on top of' it. This is similar to the meaning of 'Alav' in the verse, 'v'Alav Mateh Menasheh' -- 'and <i>next to him</i> was the tribe of Menasheh' (Bamidbar 2:20). Rashi adds that in order that one not mistakenly think that the Torah condones performing Shechitah on top of the Mizbe'ach, the verse states, 'You shall offer your Olos -- the flesh and the blood upon the Mizbe'ach' (Devarim 12:27), which teaches that only the flesh and blood are offered on the Mizbe'ach, but the Shechitah is not performed on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> comments that Rashi does not necessarily disagree with Tosfos. The wording of the verse, 'v'Zavachta Alav' -- 'and you shall slaughter on it,' implies that it is regarded as a Mitzvah for one to slaughter the Korban on top of the Mizbe'ach (see Tosfos to 59a, DH v'Chi, who also makes this inference). Rashi is saying that the correct interpretation of the verse, as based on the verse in Devarim (12:27), is that the <i>Mitzvah</i> is only to put the flesh and blood of the Korban on the Mizbe'ach, and not to slaughter it there. This does not mean that the Torah is saying that one should <i>not</i> slaughter his Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach. Rather, the Torah is saying merely that there is no special Mitzvah to do so. It is permitted, though, to slaughter the Korban on the Mizbe'ach, even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
(However, the Chok Nasan quotes the <b>RE'EM</b> who points out that Rashi's words are actually a quote from the Mechilta, which records a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to whether one may slaughter a Korban l'Chatchilah on the Mizbe'ach. See also <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> here, and <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> to 59a, DH she'Shachtu.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WE PUT THE BIMAH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BEIS HA'KENESES <span class='indexentry'>[Beis ha'Keneses: Bimah: place]</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. Yehudah):</span> The Mizbe'ach is centered between Tzafon and Darom (north and south).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	59a:</span> R. Yosi holds that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Tzafon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that the Mizbe'ach is entirely in Darom.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yoma 33b (Beraisa):</span> The Shulchan was in the north, two and a half Amos from the wall. The Menorah was in the south, two and a half Amos from the wall. The Mizbe'ach was in the middle, a little towards the outside.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah (Midos 5:1):</span> The Azarah was 187 Amos from east to west. Ezras Yisrael was 11 Amos wide, the place (past that) where Kohanim walk was 11 Amos wide, the Mizbe'ach was 32 Amos. There were 22 Amos between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 98 (Beraisa #1):</span> The Shulchanos were in the inner half (of the Heichal).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</span> They were (all at least) a third of the way in.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution:</span> (The length of the Heichal (east-west) spans 40 Amos of Kodesh, and 20 Amos of Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. The Shulchanos began 20 Amos into the Kodesh.) Beraisa #1 means that they were in the inner half of the Kodesh. Beraisa #2 means that they were a third of the way into the (entire) Heichal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sukah 51b:</span> The great Beis ha'Keneses of Alexandria had a wooden Bimah in the middle. The Gabai stood on it holding cloths. When it was time to answer Amen, he waved a cloth, and everyone answered Amen.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Megilah 14a):</span> A Tosefta says that Zekenim sit facing the people. Their backs are to the Kodesh. When the Kohanim Duchan, they face the people and their backs are to the Kodesh. When they put the Teivah, they face the people and their backs are to the Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Pneihem):</span> The Tosefta says that they face the people and their backs are to the Kodesh, i.e. the place where they put the Teivah, i.e. the Aron that houses the Sifrei Torah. People sit facing it. Zekenim, i.e. Chachamim, sit facing the people and their backs are to the Kodesh. When they put the Teivah, i.e. they take it out and put in in the street, Zekenim face the people and their backs are to the Kodesh, and the people face the Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 11:3):</span> We erect the Bimah in the middle of the Beis ha'Keneses, so all will hear one who reads the Torah or speaks to the people to humble them. We set up the Teivah (box) that contains the Sefer Torah in the middle. The back of the Teivah faces the Heichal, and the front faces the people.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> How can the Rambam say that we set up the Bimah and Teivah in the middle? He cannot mean that the Teivah is the Aron in which Seforim are always kept. He writes later that the Heichal is built in the wall! He cannot refer to a second Teivah on which we read the Torah, for he says that they read on the Bimah! The custom of all Yisrael is that the one who reads faces the Kodesh. The Tosefta that the Rif brought says unlike this, that he faces the people and his back is to the Kodesh! The Ran's text of the Tosefta says that when they put the Teivah in the street, the Zekenim face the people and their backs are to the Kodesh. This is unlike the Rambam's text. I say that Teivah is a small wooden Bimah on which they put the Sefer Torah at the time of Kri'as ha'Torah. They put it in the middle of the (big) Bimah. 'Pnei ha'Teivah' does not refer to the one who reads. Rather, it is the side they read on. This is like our custom; Pnei ha'Teivah (the side we read on) faces the people. The back faces the Kodesh. Do not ask from the Bimos some build nowadays in the back of the Beis ha'Keneses, not in the middle, and the Teivos on which they put the Torah at the end of the Bimah, and not in the middle.  There is no obligation to put it in the middle. It depends on the time and place. Batei Kenesiyos used to be exceedingly big, so they needed to put the Bimah in the middle so everyone could hear. Nowadays, our Batei Kenesiyos are small, and everyone hears. It is more beautiful to put it on the side. Even though nowadays we do not put the Sefer Torah in the middle of the Bimah, perhaps this is to honor Chachamim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Sukah 52a DH v'Kivan):</span> The Yerushalmi says that the Bimah (on which we read the Torah) is in the middle.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (150:5):</span> We make the Bimah in the middle of the Beis ha'Keneses. One who reads from the Torah stands on it, and everyone hears.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH b'Emtza):</span> This is clear from the Rambam and Tur, and it is a long-standing custom. The source is from Sukah 51b, like the Gra says. Due to our sins, some places breached the old custom and began to make the Bimah close to the Aron Kodesh, to be like the Nochrim who do so in their temples. The Poskim denounced this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (OC 28):</span> A Tzibur enlarged their Beis ha'Keneses, and want to put the Bimah at the end of the Beis ha'Keneses, near the Aron Kodesh, not in the middle like it used to be. They say that this is more beautiful. The Rambam says that we erect the Bimah in the middle, so all will hear. The Tur and Rema bring this. One who seeks to change has the lower hand. The Kesef Mishneh defended those who put it near the Aron Kodesh; the reason to put it in the middle was so everyone can hear. I say that they erred. In Alexandria, they needed cloths, because people did not hear. They could have put it at the end (i.e. front), and people would still see the cloths. If necessary, they could have had another man waving cloths in the middle (so people at the back could see). Even so, they put it in the middle. This shows that it is improper to put it at the end. The Bimah on which we read Parshas Korbanos is like the Mizbe'ach. We circle the Bimah on Sukos like they used to circle the Mizbe'ach. Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores in front of the Aron was in the middle of the Bayis (Heichal), between the Menorah and Shulchan. Our Bimah is inside, like the inner Mizbe'ach, so it is proper to put it in the middle of the Beis ha'Keneses, as much like the Beis ha'Mikdash as possible. Even the Kesef Mishneh only defdended those building a new Beis ha'Keneses, but if an old Beis ha'Keneses had a Bimah in the middle, one may not change it. The Pesikta (Yerushalmi Shabbos 12:3) says that a Keresh (beam of the Mishkan) that merited to be in the north should not be moved to the south. Maharil learns from here to boards used for a Sukah for the Mitzvah (brought in Be'er Heitev 630:6).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Meshiv Davar (1:15):</span> The Rambam says 'we set up the Teivah that contains the Sefer Torah in the middle.' The Kesef Mishneh explained that the Teivah is the table that the Sefer Torah rests on. It is in the middle of the Bimah. The Rambam did not give a reason for this. Being off center on the Bimah would not affect people's ability to hear! Rather, there is another reason. The Kesef Mishneh said that we want to honor Chachamim. This is astounding. Why are we more concerned now than before?! Rather, the custom used to be center it between north and south. There is no custom about east-west. The reason so everyone will hear does not apply so much to Kri'as ha'Torah. They did not make a Bimah for the Kohen Gadol (who reads on Yom Kipur) like they made for the king (who reads Hakhel). We do not find that we call to the Torah only one with a loud voice whom everyone will hear. Rather, it is for one who says words to humble the Tzibur. We fix it in the middle for him, and then we also read the Torah there. The table we read on is like the Mizbe'ach in the Azarah. This is why we circle it with Lulavim. We hold the Sefer Torah on the Bimah at the time of Teki'as Shofar, to resemble trumpets blown when Korbanos were offered. After the Churban, nothing protects and causes us to be remembered for good like the Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Minchas Yitzchak (3:4):</span> Some say that the Chasam Sofer permits to put the Bimah above in a new Beis ha'Keneses. The Rambam and Rema say that we put it in the middle. They did not say 'this is the custom.' This shows that it is a law, and not just a custom. If there were no compelling reason to have it in the middle, in Alexandria they would have put it towards the front, to enable Chachamim to hear Birkas ha'Torah. The Rambam says that the reason is in order that people hear. The Chasam Sofer said that people who change err. I.e. the Rambam gave one reason, but there are also other reasons.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sedei Chemed (Asifas Dinim Beis ha'Keneses 13):</span> Some question the Chasam Sofer, for we hold that the Mizbe'ach was not in the middle. They thought that he meant from north to south. Really, he meant that it is in the middle from east to west.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Minchas Yitzchak (3:4:6):</span> The Chasam Sofer said that it is like the inner Mizbe'ach. Imrei Esh (OC 7) says that it is like the Mizbe'ach in the middle of the Azarah, i.e. the outer Mizbe'ach. Those who questioned the Chasam Sofer thought that he discusses the outer Mizbe'ach. We hold unlike R. Yehudah, who says that it was in the middle, rather, like Midos 5:2, which says that most was in the south. The Mizbe'ach was in the middle from east to west. There were 22 Amos from the beginning of the Azarah to the Mizbe'ach, and 22 from the Mizbe'ach to the Ulam. However, the Chasam Sofer explicitly said that he discusses the inner Mizbe'ach! Yoma 33 says that the inner Mizbe'ach was in the middle, i.e. between north and south. However, it says that it was not exactly in the middle between east and west! Here we discuss whether the Bimah must be in the middle between east and west! However, the Yerushalmi (Shekalim 6:3) says that the inner Mizbe'ach was in the middle of the Bayis. Korban ha'Edah explains that it was in the middle when we exclude the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. The Heichal without the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim was 40 Amos long. The Mizbe'ach began after 20 Amos. Seemingly, this shows that it need not be perfectly centered. It suffices to start from the inner middle. Igros Sofrim says that the Kesef Mishneh defended people who built the Bimah towards the west. This is because the outer Mizbe'ach was near the east of the Azarah. Our custom is to put it in the middle, like the inner Mizbe'ach, which was in the middle. Newcomers want to put it in the east, near the Aron Kodesh. This does not commemorate the Heichal at all. There is no support for them. I find Igros Sofrim difficult, because the outer Mizbe'ach was in the middle of the Azarah from east to west! Perhaps he supports their practice from the opinion (Menachos 98b) that counts the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim with the Heichal. The inner Mizbe'ach was closer to the east. There is no source to put the Bimah closer to the east (of the Beis ha'Keneses). Imrei Esh says that the Kesef Mishneh defended people who held that the Bimah need not resemble the Mizbe'ach, but we must be able to circle it on Sukos, so it cannot be connected to the Aron Kodesh (like newcomers wanted to do). Al Pi Sod, it is in the middle to allude to Shlomo's throne; he attained his Chachmah b'Emtza'os (through) ha'Torah. Divrei Yirmeyah explains that at the time of Kri'as ha'Torah we are like Yisrael who surrounded the Ohel Mo'ed in the Midbar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Igros Moshe (OC 2:41):</span> The Kesef Mishneh connotes that in a big Beis ha'Keneses, the Bimah must be in the middle. We do not rely on people who promise that they will come close for Kri'as ha'Torah to hear it. Perhaps they will be lazy. In the U.S., we must be concerned lest this lead to the Isur of using a microphone on Shabbos! This results when the Bimah is not in the middle, and people cannot hear Kri'as ha'Torah and Chazaras ha'Shatz and the Rav's speech. Since there is no solid source that it must be in the middle, one need not be exactly in the middle. It must be far enough from the Aron Kodesh to enable Hakafos. This is a more solid reason than the fact that on some Shabbosos we read Parshas ha'Korbanos.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE LOCATION OF THE 'KIYOR'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes three opinions with regard to where exactly in the Azarah the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon was located. (See Insights to Yoma 16:1 for an in-depth analysis of this issue.) According to one opinion, the entire area of the top of the Mizbe'ach was located in the northern part of the Azarah, and the ramp -- from the point it began to descend from the Mizbe'ach -- was located in the southern part of the Azarah. A second opinion maintains that the Mizbe'ach was situated exactly in the middle of the Azarah, half in the northern part and half in the southern part. A third opinion says that the Mizbe'ach was located entirely in the southern part of the Azarah.
</p><p>
The Gemara deduces from a statement of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, made with regard to the placement of the Kiyor, that he maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the north of the Azarah. One verse states, 'You shall place the Kiyor between the Ohel Mo'ed and the Mizbe'ach' (Shemos 40:7). Another verse, however, states that the Mizbe'ach was opposite the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed (of the Mishkan, or the opening of the Ulam in the Beis ha'Mikdash), with nothing allowed to be placed between the Mizbe'ach and the opening of the Ohel Mo'ed (Shemos 40:29). Where, then, was the Kiyor placed? Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili explains that it was placed between the wall of the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, towards the southern part of the Azarah (in front of the southern half of the wall of the Ulam). This fulfilled both requirements of the verses; nothing was between the opening of the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach, while the Kiyor was between the southern half of the wall of the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach. This shows that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Mizbe'ach was entirely in the northern part of the Azarah, because if he maintains that any part of it was located in the southern part, then the Kiyor could be placed directly between the Ulam and that part of the Mizbe'ach (to the south of the opening of the Ulam). The Kiyor could not be placed between the Mizbe'ach and the <i>northern</i> part of the wall of the Ulam because the Torah requires that the area there be entirely vacant of any vessels.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (58b, DH Ha Mani) points out that this Gemara implies that according to the other opinions (which say that the Mizbe'ach was at least partially in the south), the Kiyor indeed was placed directly between the Mizbe'ach and the southern part of the wall of the Ulam. However, the Tosefta in Kelim (1:6) records a dispute between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim with regard to whether or not one may walk into the area between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam without having washed his hands and feet with the water of the Kiyor. Rebbi Meir says that it is permitted. The Chachamim say that it is not permitted. According to the opinions which maintain that the Mizbe'ach was in the southern part of the Azarah, how is it possible that the Kiyor was between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, if the Chachamim prohibit the Kohanim from entering that area without having already washed with the water of the Kiyor?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that perhaps those opinions follow the view of Rebbi Meir, who says that the Kohanim are permitted to enter that area before washing.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in <b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b> questions Tosfos' suggestion. In the Mishnah in Kelim (1:9), Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili follows the view of the Chachamim who rule that one is not permitted to enter the area between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach before washing. How, then, can he maintain that the Kiyor was placed between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam?
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> is perplexed by the question of the Gilyon ha'Shas. According to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, even if the Kohanim are prohibited to enter the area between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, the Kiyor was placed to the <i>south</i> of the Mizbe'ach and was not directly between the Mizbe'ach and Ulam! Although the Kohanim are not permitted to go into the northern half of the Azarah between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, they simply may go around the Mizbe'ach to the southern part and wash with the Kiyor there!
</p><p>
It seems that the intention of the Gilyon ha'Shas is the same as that of the <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> in Kelim there (#70). The Tiferes Yisrael explains that one cannot differentiate between what is called an area 'between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam' with regard to the prohibition of a Kohen entering with unwashed hands and feet, and what is called an area 'between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam' with regard to where the Kiyor must be situated. The verse (Shemos 40:7) requires that the Kiyor be situated between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam. The Gemara says that, according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, this is accomplished by placing the Kiyor on the southern side of the Azarah, between the southern part of the wall of the Ulam and the ramp of the Mizbe'ach. The area between the ramp and the Ulam qualifies as 'between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam.' Accordingly, this area must also be considered the area 'between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam' with regard to the prohibition against Kohanim walking there with unwashed hands and feet! Thus, the question of the Gilyon ha'Shas is upheld.
</p><p>
The Tiferes Yisrael answers that the prohibition against walking between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam with unwashed hands and feet is only mid'Rabanan, and the Rabanan only prohibited walking in the area between the actual Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, and not in the area between the ramp and the Ulam. Although the Torah refers to both areas as being between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, the Rabanan applied their prohibition only to the area between the actual Mizbe'ach and Ulam, in order to ensure that the Kohanim first wash their hands and feet from the Kiyor before they enter that area.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> asks a different question on Tosfos' answer. If the opinions that maintain that the Mizbe'ach was in the southern half of the Azarah cannot follow the view of the Chachamim in Kelim, but only the opinion that maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the northern half can follow the view of the Chachamim, then it is obvious that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the north! When the Gemara here (58a) attempts to find proof that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Mizbe'ach was in the northern part of the Azarah, it should quote the Mishnah in Kelim which says that he follows the view of the Chachamim!
</p><p>
The Keren Orah explains that even the opinions that maintain that the Mizbe'ach was at least partially in the south can agree with the Chachamim. Even the Chachamim agree that if a Kohen <i>needs</i> to enter the area between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam before he washes his hands (for example, he needs to get to the Kiyor in order to wash), he may enter this area. (See also the second answer of the Tiferes Yisrael.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) COMPARING THE BURNING OF THE 'KETORES' TO THE BURNING OF THE 'EIMURIN'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rav ruled that any Korban slaughtered while the Mizbe'ach is missing part of its mass (see Chulin 18a for a discussion regarding the amount, and material, of the Mizbe'ach to which this refers) is Pasul. However, Rav also ruled that if the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi is completely uprooted from its place, one may offer the Ketores upon the place where the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi stood. The two statements of Rav seem to contradict each other. The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the blood of a Korban which cannot be sprinkled where it is supposed to be sprinkled, and the Ketores. Rav agrees that blood which cannot be sprinkled disqualifies the Korban.
</p><p>
What, though, is the Halachah with regard to the burning of the limbs of the Korban, 'Haktaras Eimurin'? Is the Haktaras Eimurin like the Zerikas ha'Dam, which cannot be done when the Mizbe'ach has a defect, or is it like the Ketores, which does not need the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi in order to be burned?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (61a, DH Mai) explicitly states that Haktaras Eimurin is like the Ketores with regard to this Halachah. This seems to be the conclusion of the Gemara's answer to reconcile the contradictory statements of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav agrees that blood which cannot be sprinkled disqualifies the Korban. The Gemara implies that this Halachah applies only to Zerikas ha'Dam and not to Haktaras Eimurin, which is unrelated to the Zerikas ha'Dam.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, <b>KEREN ORAH</b>, and <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> have difficulty with the logic of Tosfos. The Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban permits the meat to be eaten. A person's consumption of the meat of the Korban is comparable to the Mizbe'ach's consumption of the limbs of the Korban (see 28b). Accordingly, it is not logical that there should be such a significant difference between the Zerikas ha'Dam and the Haktaras Eimurin, such that the Zerikah may not be performed if the Mizbe'ach is slightly chipped, while the limbs may be burned even if the entire Mizbe'ach is missing. Moreover, on certain occasions the Ketores is offered even without being brought upon the Mizbe'ach, such as the Ketores on Yom Kippur which is burned in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. It is understandable, therefore, that the Ketores does not need a Mizbe'ach. What source is there, though, that the Haktaras Eimurin may be performed without a Mizbe'ach, such that it should be compared to the Ketores?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 3:2) implies that the Eimurin are like the blood, and they cannot be offered when the Mizbe'ach is lacking. The Rambam says only that the Ketores may be offered without a Mizbe'ach, and he makes no mention of any other Avodah that is valid without the presence of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Zevach Todah proves that <b>RASHI</b> (59a, DH Mizbe'ach she'Ne'ekar) also maintains that the Eimurin are like the blood. When he discusses the statement that Ketores may be offered on the area where the Mizbe'ach stood, Rashi comments that this refers to the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. He explains that, at this point, the Gemara assumes that the same Halachah applies to the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and thus the Gemara asks that Rav's statements are contradictory. According to Rashi's explanation, the question of the Gemara does not involve a contradiction between the law of the Ketores and the law of the other things that are offered, but rather it involves a contradiction between the laws of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi and the laws of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. Hence, when the Gemara concludes that there is a difference between the two, it means that all of the things that involve the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon must be done with the Mizbe'ach fully intact. This includes Haktaras Eimurin, which is done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. Why, then, does the Gemara say that Rav agrees with regard to the blood, implying that this is a Halachah that applies specifically to the blood? The Zevach Todah explains that the Gemara says that just as Rebbi Yehudah agrees with regard to the blood, Rav agrees with regard to the blood. Since the Gemara is equating the view of Rav with the view of Rebbi Yehudah, and Rebbi Yehudah explicitly made his statement with regard to blood, the Gemara says that Rav also agrees with regard to blood (when, in truth, he maintains that everything offered on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon cannot be offered if the Mizbe'ach is lacking). (See <b>CHAZON ISH</b> 17:2, who disagrees with this interpretation of Rashi.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> REPLICAS OF THINGS IN THE MIKDASH <span class='indexentry'>[Makdish: replicas]</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. Yehudah):</span> 'V'Shalosh Amos Komaso' - the simple understanding is correct (the outer Mizbe'ach was three Amos tall).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yosi:</span> It says here 'Ravu'a', like it says about Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav. Just like there the height (two Amos) was twice the length, also here (it was 10 Amos tall).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	62a (Beraisa):</span> The length, width and height of the Mizbe'ach are not Me'akev.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Mani):</span> However, they cannot be less than Moshe's Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 43a (Mishnah):</span> Raban Gamliel had forms of the moon on a tablet. He would ask witnesses which forms resembled what they saw.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> 'Lo Sa'asun Iti' - do not make things in the form of things that serve Me!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Abaye):</span> The Torah forbids only replicas that could be made in the same dimensions.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One may not build a house like the Heichal (i.e. with the same dimensions), an Achsadra (a building open in at least one direction) like the Ulam (the hall in front of the Heichal), a courtyard like the Azarah, or a table like the Shulchan in the Heichal;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	One may to make a Menorah of any number of branches except for seven. It is forbidden to make seven from any metal;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah forbids even from wood, for the Chashmona'im made a wooden Menorah (the Yevanim had taken all the Kelim from the Mikdash).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Chachamim:</span> No, they made an iron Menorah, and covered with tin. When they got richer, they made one of silver. When they got richer, they made one of gold.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Even replicas that cannot be made in the same dimensions are forbidden!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'Lo Sa'asun Iti' - do not make things in the form of those who serve Me *above*!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 28a (Mishnah):</span> The seven branches of the Menorah are Me'akev each other. The seven lamps are Me'akev each other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'Gevi'eha Kaftoreha u'Fracheha' - the Menorah must have (forms of) cups, buttons and flowers only if it is made of gold.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	28b (Beraisa #2 - Rebbi):</span> If a Keli Shares was made of wood it is Pasul;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah is Machshir.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Shmuel):</span> The Menorah was 18 Tefachim tall. It had 22 cups, 11 buttons and nine flowers. Each design is Me'akev itself and the others.</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 18b and 3:5):</span> One may not make a candelabra like the Menorah. One may make one of five, six or eight branches, but not of seven. This is forbidden even from other metals (than gold).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Tanan):</span> We first answered that the moon was permitted because only replicas in the same dimensions are forbidden, e.g. a house like the Heichal. If it is even a little bit more or less, it is permitted. A wooden Menorah of seven branches is permitted, because the Menorah in the Mikdash must be of metal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:4):</span> The future Beis ha'Mikdash that will be built, even though it is written in Yechezkeil, it is not explicit and explained. The people of Bayis Sheni in the days of Ezra built like Shlomo's Bayis, similar to what is explicit in Yechezkeil.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (20):</span> If rocks or beams were hewn initially for a Beis ha'Keneses, we may not build them for Har ha'Bayis.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (2:17):</span> The height of the Mizbe'ach is not Me'akev, as long as it is not less than three Amos, the height of the Mizbe'ach in the Midbar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharik (75):</span> The Beraisa did not distinguish and say that a Menorah of seven branches is permitted of some materials. Rather, it is always forbidden, even if it is of wood according to the first Tana, or earthenware according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. Surely it is a bigger Chidush to permit a Menorah of seven branches, even though its height is unlike the Menorah in the Mikdash, since it has the same form, than to permit a Menorah of five, six or eight branches, even if it is 18 Tefachim tall. Even in the Mikdash the height was not Me'akev. The verses do not give its height. There is a mere support from the Gematriya of 'v'Zeh', which is 18. Therefore, it is not Me'akev. We learn from a Kal va'Chomer from the height of the Mizbe'ach. R. Yehudah and R. Yosi learn the height from verses, and even so it is not Me'akev. Also the Rambam says that the height of the Mizbe'ach is not Me'akev, and all the more so the height of the Menorah is not Me'akev. Surely one may not make a replica of it, even if it is not 18 Tefachim tall. Also, we forbid an Achsadra like the Ulam. Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 24a DH Achsadra) says that even though the Ulam had four walls, and an Achsadra has only three, since the Ulam's opening is big and tall, it seems as if it has only three walls. This shows that a mere semblance is forbidden. It depends on appearance, even if it is not really like what was in the Mikdash. Surely, a Menorah of seven branches with (the form of) buttons and flowers like that of the Mikdash is forbidden. Rashi (43 DH Bayis) forbids house with the same length, width, height and openings as the Heichal. If he deviated a little, it is permitted. We can say that a house is different. If it is not exactly like the Mikdash, it is not recognizable that it is like the Mikdash. There are many big, tall houses! We cannot say so about a Menorah. Even if Rashi argues with Tosfos about an Achsadra, he could agree about the height of the Menorah. The dimensions and openings of the Heichal are explicit in verses. There is a mere support for the the Menorah's height. Even if Rashi argues with Tosfos, who will decide between them regarding an Isur Torah?! Surely it is forbidden even without buttons and flowers. There is no need for them on a Menorah not of gold. Surely, one may not make outside anything Kosher for the Mikdash. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah proved that a wooden Menorah is Kosher from Beis Chashmonai, who made one. Why did Chachamim need to say that it was of iron (to reject his proof)? Why didn't they say that even though it is Kosher, this is not called 'the form of Shamashim (things used to serve Hash-m)', since it is not metal! The Ri of Korvil forbids a Menorah of seven branches even without cups. Surely, the same applies without buttons and flowers, for they are Me'akev each other. He mentioned cups because the Torah mentions them first.</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 141:8):</span> One may not build a house like the Heichal, an Achsadra like the Ulam, a courtyard like the Azarah, a table like the Shulchan, or a Menorah like the Menorah. One may make one of five or six or eight branches, but not seven, even from other metals, even without buttons and flowers and cups, even if it is not 18 Tefachim tall.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (33):</span> If one deviated slightly, it is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (35):</span> A wooden Menorah is permitted, and all the more so a Menorah of Cheres (earthenware), like Rashi says This is why the Tur and Shulchan Aruch specify of metal.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (36):</span> It is forbidden without cups, etc., for this is not Me'akev. B'Di'eved, it is Kosher without buttons and cups, and if it is not 18 Tefachim tall.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Akiva Eiger:</span> This connotes that if it is of gold, in which case buttons (and flowers and cups) are Me'akev, one may make it with seven branches, without the buttons. The Shach holds that the Shulchan Aruch forbids even without buttons, i.e. in the previous case mentioned, when it is of other metals. However, Tevu'os Shor forbids also if it is of gold.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (15):</span> It is difficult to say that the Shach means that since they are not Me'akev when it is of other metals, this is called Tavnis even when it is of gold and they are Me'akev.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (12):</span> Tif'eres l'Moshe says that if a Nochri made for a Yisrael a house like the Heichal, or a Menorah or Shulchan like in the Mikdash, he may use it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Efrayim (OC 10):</span> In Avodah Zarah, Rashi forbids a house like the Heichal only if it is similar in the dimensions and openings. In Menachos 28a DH Tavnis, he does not mention the openings. It is not clear which Heichal we discuss. In Bayis Rishon it was 30 Amos tall, and in Bayis Sheni it was 40 Amos tall. Do we learn from Bayis Rishon that also 30 Amos is Kosher? Perhaps we are concerned only for the dimensions of Bayis Sheni, which was built based on Nevi'im. Presumably, they expounded verses. However, surely Shlomo knew to expound something that is Me'akev! In Bayis Sheni, they found sources to widen the Mizbe'ach to 60 Amos if they want. The same applies to the height of the Heichal. The Rambam says that Bayis Sheni was built like Shlomo's Bayis, similar to what is explicit in Yechezkeil. If so, from then on only these dimensions are forbidden. However, this is wrong. Yechezkeil did not specify the height. Rashi says that the height is not explicit, just in Midos it says that the Heichal is 100 Amos tall. Tosfos Yom Tov says that perhaps the height of the future Bayis will not equal that of Bayis Sheni. Divrei ha'Yamim (3:4:4) says that the height of Bayis Rishon was 120. We do not know how high the Heichal itself was, and how high the Aliyos on top were. (Note: Rashi on that verse cites Melachim 1:6:2, which says that the Heichal was 30 tall!) Rashi in Avodah Zarah requires the openings to be the same. This connotes that it depends only on Bayis Sheni, for verses do not detail the size of the openings in Bayis Rishon. What is Rashi's source that it depends on Bayis Sheni? The Pnei Yehoshua says that the lower Beis ha'Mikdash corresponds to the higher Beis ha'Mikdash. Perhaps they saw the upper Heichal and Ulam - 'Atem Re'isem.' The Torah forbids making a semblance of it. Why is it forbidden even nowadays? Perhaps also after the Churban, it is a semblance of the Mikdash above. Bayis Sheni was made according to Nevi'im. Surely also above it was made that way. From then and onwards, this is what is forbidden.   If we learn the Isur of a house like the Heichal from Lo Sa'asun Iti, after Bayis Sheni was built only those dimensions are forbidden. However, we concluded that Chachamim forbade everything similar to what is used for Hash-m, so even like Bayis Rishon is forbidden. We find that one may not make oil like Shemen ha'Mishchah, even after it was hidden. In Avodah Zarah Rashi explained the Hava Amina. In Menachos he explains based on the conclusion.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Efrayim (OC 10):</span> Why did the Rambam say that from Bayis Sheni we know what Bayis Shelishi will be like? He should say that it teaches us what is forbidden to make! In Megilah, R. Yitzchak permits offering nowadays in Beis Chonyo. If so, it should be permitted to make things like in the Mikdash, in order to offer! Do not say that we permit only what was made for Hash-m from the beginning. Megilah 14a says that they built Chulin, and afterwards make it Hekdesh! The Rambam rules like this. He also wrote that rocks or beams that were hewn initially for a Beis ha'Keneses may not be build into Har ha'Bayis. It seems that this is a mere stringency mid'Rabanan. R. Yitzchak holds that the Isur of a house like the Heichal is only when the Mikdash stands. We hold that the Isur is permanent, for the first Kedushah (of the Mikdash) was permanent. We could not say that Midos taught the dimensions of Bayis Sheni for the Isur of making things like in the Mikdash, for this would not suffice according to R. Yitzchak, who permits after the Churban. However, in Yoma 16a we say that R. Eliezer ben Yakov taught Maseches Midos, and in Zevachim 62a he permits offering Korbanos without a Mikdash, i.e. the first Kedushah was permanent. I say that the Rambam concluded that the Isur of making things similar to in the Mikdash is mid'Rabanan, due to fear of the Mikdash. He taught it with similar laws, e.g. one may not move his bowels facing east-west. Therefore, even like the first Mikdash is forbidden. The Ri me'Rotenburg forbids to make a house the same length and width as the Heichal. He omitted the height, for he holds that it is not Me'akev. We find that in Bayis Sheni, they changed the height. It seems that we are concerned for the dimensions of the interior. The thickness of the walls and cells (around the Heichal) is not Me'akev.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (14):</span> Some people wanted to make a Menorah of seven branches with changes, e.g. six of them are in a circle, triangle or rectangle, and one in the middle. Bechor Shor (Rosh Hashanah 24) says that one must protest against them. The Isur of making things like in the Mikdash applies even if there are deviations that are not Me'akev. We do not find that the arrangement of the branches is Me'akev. Mishnas Chachamim (Hilchos Avodah Zarah p.64) leans to permit if they are in a circle, or if they are of candles, and not of oil. This is not necessarily true. One should be stringent about an Isur Torah.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE HEIGHT OF THE 'MIZBE'ACH HA'CHITZON' IN THE MISHKAN</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi, who disagree about the height of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes). The verse says, 'v'Shalosh Amos Komaso' -- 'and three Amos is its height' (Shemos 27:1). Rebbi Yehudah says that the verse is to be understood as it is written. Rebbi Yosi says that a Gezeirah Shavah from the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi ('Ravu'a, Ravu'a') teaches that just as the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi's height is twice its width, the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon's height is twice its width, resulting in a height of ten Amos. (In the Gemara later (60a), Rebbi Yosi addresses the obvious question according to his opinion: what does the verse mean when it says that the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is 'three Amos' high? He explains that this refers to the height from the edge of the Sovev to the top of the Mizbe'ach.)
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehudah questions Rebbi Yosi's opinion. Is it possible for the Kohen to perform the Avodah on such a tall Mizbe'ach while everyone watches him? The Mishkan itself was only ten Amos high! Rebbi Yosi answers that there is a Hekesh in the verse (Bamidbar 4:26) which discusses the Mishkan and mentions the Mizbe'ach as well. The Hekesh teaches that just as the Mishkan is ten Amos high, the Mizbe'ach also is ten Amos high.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah) asks that Rebbi Yosi initially states that the source that the Mizbe'ach must be ten Amos high is the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Ravu'a.' Now, however, Rebbi Yosi gives a different source -- the Hekesh in the verse regarding the Mishkan and the Mizbe'ach! If he learns the Hekesh, why does he also need a Gezeirah Shavah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Af Mizbe'ach) is not bothered by this question. He learns that the Hekesh that Rebbi Yosi mentions is not discussing the height of the Mizbe'ach, but rather the height of the curtains surrounding the Mizbe'ach, which were also ten Amos. This answers Rebbi Yehudah's question; the Kohen was not seen because of the curtains surrounding the Mizbe'ach. This is also the second explanation cited by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> understands that Tosfos learns that both the Gezeirah Shavah and the Hekesh refer to the height of the Mizbe'ach, and thus Tosfos is bothered by the question.
</p><p>
However, the <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> says that Tosfos also might understand the Gemara as Rashi does, but he still is bothered by his question. Rebbi Yosi goes on to discuss two other verses -- 'its curtains are fifteen Amos to the shoulder' (Shemos 38:14), and 'its height is five Amos' (Shemos 27:18). Tosfos (DH v'Omer) explains that the Gemara understands that the former verse refers to the width of the curtains, while the latter refers to their height (unlike Rashi on 60a, DH Amah El ha'Kasef). This means that the only clear description of the curtains in the verse is that they are five Amos high. The Panim Me'iros explains that if Rebbi Yosi had only the Hekesh to teach that the curtains surrounding the Mizbe'ach must be ten Amos high, then one would have assumed that the Mizbe'ach was only five Amos high. Once it is known that the curtains are ten Amos high, the verse may be understood as saying that the curtains are 'five Amos' <i>taller</i> than the Mizbe'ach. The Gezeirah Shavah of 'Ravu'a' teaches not to learn the verse about the curtains that way, but rather that the Mizbe'ach itself is ten Amos high. This means that the curtains must be fifteen Amos high. Similarly, if Rebbi Yosi had only the Gezeirah Shavah, one would have known that the Mizbe'ach is ten Amos high, but one would have thought that the verse that says that the curtains are five Amos high means that the curtains need to be only five Amos high around the Mizbe'ach and not higher. The Hekesh teaches that the curtains must be at least ten Amos high, just like the curtains of the Mishkan. How, though, can one verse say that the curtains are five Amos high, while the Hekesh teaches that they are ten Amos high? It must be that the curtains are <i>fifteen</i> Amos high, five Amos taller than the Mizbe'ach. (A similar explanation is given by the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b>.)
</p><p>
The Sefas Emes says that he does not agree with these opinions, because Tosfos appears to learn that both verses refer to the height of the Mizbe'ach and not to the height of the curtains.
</p><p>
(b) The first answer in the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> is that the Gezeirah Shavah gives Rebbi Yosi the license to learn the Hekesh. Since the verse says explicitly that the Mizbe'ach is 'three Amos' high, Rebbi Yosi would not have derived a different measurement from a Derashah unless he had both a Gezeirah Shavah and a Hekesh from which to learn that measurement. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) EATING THE LEFTOVERS OF A KORBAN WHEN THE MIZBE'ACH IS DEFECTIVE</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rebbi Elazar says that if the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped, the leftovers of a Korban Minchah cannot be eaten. The Gemara extends this to other Korbanos as well. This is similar to the Halachah discussed earlier in the Gemara (59a), that any Korban slaughtered while the Mizbe'ach is missing part of its mass (see Chulin 18a for a discussion regarding the amount, and material, of the Mizbe'ach to which this refers) is Pasul if its Zerikas ha'Dam had not yet been performed. It is clear that the Gemara earlier means that all of the Korbanos at that time become permanently Pasul. Is this also the law regarding the leftovers of a Korban Minchah, or will fixing the Mizbe'ach allow them to be eaten?
</p><p>
(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in <b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b> refers us to the end of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Metzia (53b, DH Lo Plug). Tosfos there rules that when the Mizbe'ach is fixed, the remnants of the Minchah may be eaten. The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> writes that the <b>RAMBAM</b> is also of this opinion (in Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:25). The Rambam earlier (3:22) writes the Halachah that all Korbanos, which did not have their Zerikas ha'Dam performed yet, are Pasul if the Mizbe'ach is chipped. The Rambam here quotes the Gemara and says that, in general, eating Kodshim is forbidden until the Mizbe'ach is rebuilt. The Mahari Kurkus says that this clearly implies that when the Mizbe'ach is rebuilt, people may eat their Korbanos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> and <b>KEREN ORAH</b> point out that Tosfos later (61b, DH Af Al Pi) seems to maintain that these Korbanos remain Pasul even after the Mizbe'ach is fixed. Tosfos says that when the Mizbe'ach is chipped, once a Korban is unable to be eaten it remains prohibited to be eaten. The Zevach Todah and Keren Orah write that Tosfos clearly argues with the opinions mentioned above.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> points out that Rebbi Akiva Eiger apparently understands that Tosfos later does <i>not</i> argue with Tosfos in Bava Metzia, because otherwise he would have referred us to Tosfos here in Zevachim as well (see, however, Gilyon ha'Shas to 61a, DH v'Gam). This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b> in Makos (19a, DH Aval). He writes that 'everyone agrees' that Korbanos which already had their Zerikah performed do not become Pasul just because the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped. He adds that this is clearly stated by the Rambam (loc. cit.) and Tosfos in Bava Metzia, and he makes no mention of the Tosfos cited by the Zevach Todah and Keren Orah. It seems that they had a different explanation of that Tosfos. (See <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> to Tosfos 61b.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WAS THE KEDUSHAH OF YERUSHALAYIM PERMANENT? <span class='indexentry'>[Kedushah:Yerushalayim]</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. Yosi citing R. Yishmael) Suggestion:</span> Perhaps nowadays (after the Churban) we may eat Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> 'Va'Haveisem Shamah... (Masroseichem... u'Vchoros...)' equates Ma'aser and Bechor. Just like Bechor may be eaten only when the Mikdash stands, also Ma'aser.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If the Tana holds that the Kedushah is permanent, also Bechor is permitted today. If he holds that the Kedushah was not permanent, he should be equally unsure about Bechor!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Ravina):</span> He holds that the Kedushah was not permanent. The case is, the Bechor's blood was thrown before the Churban, and the meat is intact after the Churban. The meat is equated to the blood. Just like the blood requires a Mizbe'ach, also the meat. We learn Ma'aser from Bechor.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	107b (R. Yochanan):</span> If one offers Korbanos outside the Mikdash nowadays he is liable, because the first Kedushah was permanent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> He is exempt. The first Kedushah was temporary.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Megilah 10a (Mishnah):</span> Once the Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim, Bamos were forbidden forever. This was the 'Nachalah'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	Tana'im argue about whether Kedushas Yerushalayim still applies.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa #1 - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</span> The Mishnah (Erchin 32a) lists cities that the exiles who returned from Bavel were Mekadesh. The first Kedushah lapsed after the first Churban. (It was not permanent.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2 - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi):</span> If you have a tradition that a city had a wall from the days of Yehoshua, all laws of walled cities apply to it, for the Kedushah was permanent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution:</span> The Tana'im argue about his opinion. Alternatively, the Tana of Beraisa #2 is really R. *Eliezer* bar Yosi.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Eliezer bar Yosi):</span> 'Asher *Lo* Chomah' has an extra Aleph, to include) even if it does not have a wall now, if it once had one.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevamos 82b (Beraisa in Seder Olam):</span> 'That your fathers inherited, and you will inherit' - there are two inheritances, but not a third (the second Kedushah never ceased).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> R. Yosi taught Seder Olam.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevu'os 16a (Rav Huna):</span> The text of the Mishnah (14a) is 'to add onto Yerushalayim or the Azarah, we need a king, a Navi, the Urim v'Tumim... If an addition was made without all this, one who enters there b'Tum'ah is exempt.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Nachman):</span> The text is 'if an addition was made without (at least) *one of these* (he is exempt, for it does not get Kedushah).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span>	(According to Rav Huna, Ezra could not be Mekadesh Bayis Sheni, for they lacked the Urim v'Tumim.) He must hold that Shlomo's Kidush of the Mikdash was permanent. Ezra's actions were only a commemoration of Kidush. Rav Nachman holds that the Kedushah of the first Mikdash had ceased.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:3):</span> Once the Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim it was forbidden to build a house for Hash-m for bringing Korbanos anywhere else. The Beis ha'Mikdash for all generations is only in Har ha'Moriyah - it says 'Zeh Beis Hash-m' and 'Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid. 6:14,15):</span> Shlomo gave permanent Kedushah to the Azarah and Yerushalayim. Therefore, we may offer Korbanos even when the Bayis is not built, and we may eat Kodshei Kodoshim in the entire Azarah without a surrounding wall. We may eat Kodshim Kalim in Yerushalayim without a wall, for the first Kedushah was permanent. Even though the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael for Shemitah and Ma'aseros was temporary, the Kedushah of the Azarah and Yerushalayim was permanent, for their Kedushah is the Shechinah, which is not Batel. It says 'v'Hashimosi Es Mikdesheichem'.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Teshuvas Kol Mevaser 2:10 DH v'Od):</span> R. Acha (Shemos Rabah 2:2 DH Moshe) says that the Mikdash remains in its Kedushah after the Churban, and that Shechinah never left the Western Wall.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid.):</span> The Mitzvos of Shemitah and Ma'aseros depend on conquering the land, so once the Nochrim took it, the conquest (by Yisrael) was Batel, so it was no longer considered Eretz Yisrael. Ezra was not Mekadesh Eretz Yisrael through conquest, rather, through Chazakah. Therefore, any place where Olei Bavel settled and Ezra was Mekadesh is still Kodesh nowadays, even though the land was taken.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</span> The Rambam says his own reasoning without a source. Many Gemaros says that without a Mikdash, we must leave Kodshim to rot. It is clear from Bava Metzi'a 53b that if the Mechitzos fell, Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten. We do not distinguish the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael from that of Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> The Rambam (Pirush ha'Mishnayos Eduyos 8:6) says that all Tana'im agree that Kidush of Bayis Rishon was permanent. They argue only about the rest of Eretz Yisrael. This is like Rav Huna. If the Ra'avad questions the Rambam's reason (the Shechinah is not Batel), this is explicit - 'veha'Shimosi Es Mikdesheichem' (even when they are desolate, they are Kodesh - Megilah 28a). Perhaps the Ra'avad asks why the Rambam rules against Rav Nachman.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua against R. Eliezer, and he holds that the Kedushah is permanent. Also, we follow R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish (Zevachim 107b). Also, the Gemara suggested that all agree that the Kedushah is permanent. R. Yehoshua said that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash is permanent. He did not say so about the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael. However, I cannot answer for the Gemaros that say without a Mikdash, we must leave Kodshim to rot.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas Mishpat Kohen (Inyanei Eretz Yisrael 96 DH Yesod):</span> We follow the Mishnah in Eduyos (brought in Megilah 10a) against all other Mishnayos. Since it is possible to learn that R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer agree (that the Kedushah was permanent), like Ravina, we do so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> The Rambam holds that if the Mikdash would be standing, one could eat Ma'aser Sheni and Revai even after the wall of Yerushalayim fell. Even though the Kedushah of Yerushalayim is permanent, one may not eat without a Mikdash.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> I say that even R. Yosi, who says that the second Kedushah was permanent (Yevamos 82b) says so only about the rest of Eretz Yisrael, but not about Yerushalayim, for Ezra knew that Hash-m would later make a permanent Kedushah. One who enters there nowadays is not Chayav Kares.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Ra'avad gives no source that R. Yosi refers only to the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Why wouldn't Ezra make a permanent Kedushah, to allow Korbanos after the second Churban? The Ra'avad seemed like he was unsure. Why does he exempt from Kares?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> Even if Ezra knew that Hash-m will later make a permanent Kedushah, Ezra could have been Mekadesh now, and later Hash-m would add in area and quality of the Kedushah! Further, Rav Huna holds that Ezra was unable to Mekadesh, and Rav Nachman holds that he was Mekadesh! The Ra'avad must hold like Rav Nachman. Ezra was Mekadesh Eretz Yisrael Stam; such Kidush is permanent. He limited the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash to when they stand, to allow Hash-m to be Mekadesh them later!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Tosfos Shavu'os 16a DH Teni):</span> What forced Rav Nachman to change the text? In any case some Stam Mishnayos hold that the first Kedushah was permanent!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Shimshon (Shevi'is 6:1 b'Sof):</span> It is not difficult to say that Kedushas ha'Aretz is Batel for Terumah, but Kedushas Mechitzos (of the Mikdash, to Mechayev for Shechutei Chutz) remains. Perhaps we learn from 'Asher *Lo* Chomah' - if it once had a wall, even if now there is no wall. Alternatively, 'Zeh Menuchasi Adei Ad' teaches that there is no Heter Bamos after Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sefer Yere'im (277 (325 in old edition)):</span> The Halachah follows R. Yosi, who says that Kedushas Eretz Yisrael is permitted. All the more so Kedushas Yerushalayim, which is greater, is permanent. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that Kedushas ha'Aretz was Batel; we learn from this that Kedushas Yerushalayim was Batel, to be lenient (Shevu'os 16a). All the more so we may learn a stringency, that the opinion that Kedushas ha'Aretz was not Batel says the same about Yerushalayim! Therefore, nowadays one must be careful not to enter Makom ha'Mikdash, since we are Temei'im.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Makos 19a DH v'Iy):</span> The Gemara forbids eating Ma'aser in Yerushalayim after the Churban. We must say that even though Kedushas Mikdash was not permanent, Kedushas ha'Aretz was permanent.</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 331:132):</span> Tur (YD 331): Ma'aser Sheni is eaten within the wall of Yerushalayim only when there is a Mikdash. We learn from a Hekesh of Ma'aser to Bechor.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tur (YD 331):</span> We should be able to eat Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim today. Even though there is no wall, the Kedushah of the city and the Beis ha'Mikdash are not Batel. However, the Hekesh teaches that it can be eaten only when there is a Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (OC 561:2):</span> The Rambam had the text of Tosfos (Makos 19a), that even the one who holds that Kedushas ha'Mikdash was permanent forbids eating Bechor and Ma'aser nowadays. One who enters the Mikdash nowadays is Chayav Kares. Also tthe Agudah says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Likutei Halachos (Zevachim p. 66b, and Zevach Todah):</span> Many Rishonim agree with the Rambam; the Ra'avad is a lone opinion. Also, R. Eliezer ben Yakov (Zevachim 62a) permits Hakravah without a Mikdash (for the first Kedushah was permanent). The Halachah always follows him, even in a Beraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (8):</span> One may come close to the openings to the Mikdash and enter the Aliyos around the Mikdash.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENT 'KEDUSHOS' OF ERETZ YISRAEL AND YERUSHALAYIM</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses Rebbi Yishmael's ruling that Ma'aser Sheni is not brought to Yerushalayim and eaten there when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. He learns this from the verse, 'And you will bring there your Olos, and your Zevachim, and your Ma'aseros, and the firstborn of your cattle and sheep' (Devarim 12:6). The verse compares Ma'aser to Bechor, teaching that just as the requirement to bring a Bechor to Yerushalayim applies only when it is brought in front of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the requirement to bring Ma'aser to Yerushalayim applies only when the Beis ha'Mikdash is standing.
</p><p>
The Gemara analyzes the logic of Rebbi Yishmael's ruling. If he maintains that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains after the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer standing, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought to Yerushalayim when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Afilu Bechor Nami) quotes the Gemara in Megilah (10a) that teaches that the opinion which maintains that the Kedushah is still present also maintains that one may still bring (in theory) Korbanos today, and thus one should also be able to bring a Bechor. On the other hand, if Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah is no longer present, then the Gemara should ask what the Halachah is in a case in which the Avodos of a Bechor were performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and then the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed before the meat of the Bechor was eaten. May the meat be eaten now that there is no Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
Ravina answers that Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah was not permanent. According to Rebbi Yishmael, the meat of the Bechor may not be eaten because of a different set of verses (Bamidbar 18:17-8). Based on this Halachah regarding Bechor, Rebbi Yishmael derives from the verse in Devarim (12:6) that Ma'aser also may no longer be eaten.
</p><p>
As Rashi points out earlier (DH Yachol), Rebbi Yishmael maintains that the Kedushah of <i>Eretz Yisrael</i> was permanent, and that is why the obligation to separate Ma'aser today is mid'Oraisa, and thus one might have thought that he must bring Ma'aser Sheni to Yerushalayim even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing. Nevertheless, the Gemara asks whether he maintains that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash was permanent. This shows that the two Kedushos -- that of Eretz Yisrael and that of Yerushalayim -- are independent of each other. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mai) brings support for this point from the Gemara later (112b) that states that when the Mishkan in Shilo was destroyed, the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael remained. It is evident from there that the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael and the Kedushah of the Beis ha'Mikdash (or Mishkan) are independent of each other.
</p><p>
What logic is there to separate the two Kedushos? Why should the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash remain when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is no longer present?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Yevamos (82b, DH Yerushah) explains that, logically, both Kedushos should <i>not</i> be present today. However, the verse, 'Asher Lo Chomah' (Vayikra 25:30), teaches that even when the wall of a fortified city is no longer standing, the Halachos of 'Batei Arei Chomah' still apply to that city (see Megilah 10b). Rashi in Megilah there (DH Af Al Pi) explains that this Derashah follows the opinion that the original Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash (which depends upon the walls standing) still applies even after the walls were destroyed (and even when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is no longer present).
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos explains that Yerushalayim is called a Nachalah, an 'inheritance,' such as in the verse which discusses the Jewish people coming to their 'Nachalah' (Devarim 12:9; see Megilah 10a). Tosfos suggests that the word 'inheritance' denotes permanence -- a permanent inheritance. The verse of 'Nachalah' is written with regard to Korbanos. This indicates that Yerushalayim is a permanent 'Nachalah' with regard to bringing Korbanos there, in contrast to the general Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael which is not permanent.
</p><p>
(c) In a similar vein, Tosfos suggests that the source for the permanence of the Kedushah of Yerushalayim is the verse, 'Zos Menuchasi Adei Ad' -- 'This is My resting place forever' (Tehilim 132:13). (See also <b>RASH</b>, end of Shevi'is 6:1.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:16) rules that Kedushah Rishonah remains with regard to all Halachos that are associated with Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, concerning all matters that are not associated with Kedushas Yerushalayim and Kedushas ha'Bayis, but with Kedushas ha'Aretz (such as Terumah, Ma'aser, Chalah, Orlah, Leket, Shemitah and Yovel, and Bikurim), the Kedushah no longer remains. The Rambam explains that the reason for this difference is that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim depends on the Shechinah dwelling there; the Shechinah does not disappear when Yerushalayim is in ruins. As the Chachamim (Megilah 28a) explain, when the verse says, 'v'Hashimosi Es Mikdasheichem' -- 'and I will make your holy places desolate' (Vayikra 26:31), it means that although they will become desolate, they will remain 'holy places,' with their Kedushah. (Y. Montrose; see also Insights to Megilah 10:1 and Shevuos 16:1.)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: OFFERING KORBANOS TODAY</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mai) deals at length with the argument among the Tana'im and Amora'im about whether the first Kedushah of Yerushalayim remains or whether it was removed at the time of the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. This argument is the basis for the discussion later in the Gemara (62a) about whether or not Korbanos may be offered today.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>DERISHAS TZIYON</b> (<b>HA'GA'ON RAV TZVI HIRSH KALISHER</b>, as cited by <b>TZITZ ELIEZER</b> 10:5:1) writes that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:16) rules that Kedushah Rishonah, the original Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael, remains in effect with regard to all Halachos associated with Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash. The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, however, argues that even according to the opinion that the Kedushah is still extant, it is extant only with regard to the Kedushah of the rest of Eretz Yisrael; all of the Tana'im and Amora'im agree that the Kedushah of Yerushalayim and the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer present. (It will return only at the time of the building of the third Beis ha'Mikdash.)
</p><p>
The Derishas Tziyon asserts that according to both opinions, the bringing of the Korban Pesach should be permitted today at the location of the Mizbe'ach. According to the Rambam, the Kedushah is still present. According to the Ra'avad, it should be no different from bringing the Korban on a Bamah. The Gemara in Megilah (10a) implies that the opinion that the Kedushah is no longer present permits offering Korbanos on a Bamah. Why, then, do the Jewish people not offer the Korban Pesach today?
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Megilah (10a) and others assert that both opinions agree that a Bamah remains prohibited even after Yerushalayim is destroyed and loses its Kedushah. This is because the Torah's allowance for offering Korbanos on Bamos applied only until the Mizbe'ach in Yerushalayim was built. Once the Korbanos were offered upon the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash, Bamos became prohibited forever, even when the Beis ha'Mikdash would no longer be standing, and regardless of whether the city still has Kedushah. The argument between these opinions is whether or not one may bring a Korban at the location of the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The opinion that there is no longer any Kedushah maintains that all Korbanos are forbidden today, even if they are brought in the place of the Mizbe'ach. This contradicts the Derishas Tziyon's argument that the Ra'avad would permit bringing such a Korban. (For a comprehensive discussion of the opinion of the Rishonim regarding this argument, see Insights to Megilah 10:1.)
</p><p>
(c) Nevertheless, it seems that at least according to the Rambam, offering Korbanos today at the location of the Mizbe'ach should be permitted. However, there are many reasons why this still may be Halachically unacceptable. One reason is that from the times of the Rishonim, there has been a doubt about the lineage of every Kohen. (It is said that the Vilna Ga'on, who was a firstborn son, would perform Pidyon ha'Ben and redeem himself, out of doubt, from every Kohen he would meet, in order to ensure that he was redeemed from a genuine Kohen.) No Korban may be offered without a genuine Kohen to perform the Avodah.
</p><p>
A second reason involves the issue of offering the Korban Pesach when everyone is Tamei. The Halachah is that the Korban may be brought when the entire nation is Tamei. The Gemara asks, however, that there still is prohibition against entering the Beis ha'Mikdash while Tamei. One opinion in the Gemara says that the bringing of the Korban overrides the prohibition of Tum'as Mikdash and permits transgressing the Isur ('Dechuyah'), while another opinion says that the issue of Tum'ah is not relevant at all; the Isur does not apply when the entire nation is Tamei ('Hutrah'). The difference between these two opinions is whether or not there is a need for atonement after the Korban is brought, due to the presence of a person who was Tamei in the Mikdash. If the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash applies but may be transgressed for the sake of bringing the Korban, then the Kohen Gadol's wearing of the Tzitz atones for the Tum'as Mikdash. Nowadays, though, there is no Tzitz to wear and to atone for the Tum'ah, and thus bringing a Korban when everyone is Tamei should not be possible, since there will be no way to atone for the Tum'as Mikdash afterwards.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> proposes an argument in favor of bringing Korbanos today. He maintains that the correct opinion in the argument regarding the suspension of the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash when everyone is Tamei is that the Tum'ah is 'Hutrah' -- the Isur does not apply at all (and not that it applies but may be transgressed for the sake of bringing a Korban), and thus atonement for the Tum'as Mikdash is not necessary. However, the Chasam Sofer admits that there is another serious problem with offering Korbanos today. <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> wrote to the Chasam Sofer that the exact identity of the Techeles and Argaman has been forgotten (regarding Techeles, see Insights to Shabbos 75:1). <b>RASHI</b> and the <b>RAMBAM</b> disagree about the identity of Argaman, and there are other opinions among the Rishonim. Consequently, the Avnet (the belt of the Bigdei Kehunah) cannot be fashioned, and without all of the Bigdei Kehunah the Kohen may not perform the Avodah.
</p><p>
(e) There have been at least two famous Halachic authorities who strongly disagreed with the above arguments. As noted above, the Chasam Sofer writes that the problem of Tum'ah is not an issue. Moreover, in a famous letter to the <b>BINYAN TZIYON</b> (the author of the <b>ARUCH LA'NER</b>), <b>RAV TZVI HIRSCH KALISHER</b> addresses the problem that today's Kohanim lack indubitable lineage. The Mishnah in Eduyos (8:7) quotes Rebbi Yehoshua who says, 'I have a tradition from Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai who heard from his teacher, who heard from his teacher, that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that Eliyahu ha'Navi is not coming to make Tamei and Tahor, to distance and to make close. Rather, he will distance those who forced themselves close, and make close those who were forcibly distanced.' This means that Eliyahu ha'Navi is not going to reveal anything new with regard to lineage. He will only push away people who forced themselves to be accepted as having proper lineage, and he will gather in people who were knowingly and wrongfully distanced. Rav Tzvi Hirsh Kalisher questions the wording of the Mishnah there. Why does Rebbi Yehoshua open his Agadic comment with such forceful language to insure that his statement will be accepted? The Gemara usually does not deal with topics that are relevant only in the time of Mashi'ach. What, then, is so important about Rebbi Yehoshua's statement?
</p><p>
Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's statement has a very practical ramification. Rebbi Yehoshua is teaching that there is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that Eliyahu ha'Navi will make no new revelations concerning any Kohen who is now accepted as a Kohen. This shows that the lineage of a Kohen today is not suspect.
</p><p>
The Binyan Tziyon (#1) rejects this argument because it contradicts the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Sanhedrin (51b). Tosfos there asks a similar question. Why does the Gemara in Kidushin (72b) state that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, who says that in the future (in the times of Mashi'ach) people who have questionable lineage will be 'purified'? What difference does it make now to know that in the future the Halachah will follow the view of Rebbi Yosi? Tosfos answers that there is a practical ramification even nowadays. This Halachah teaches that one does not have to be careful to refrain from marrying people of uncertain lineage. Rebbi Yosi reassures us that those people will be found to have good lineage. The Binyan Tziyon states that Tosfos similarly would say that this is the reason for the strong language of the Mishnah in Eduyos. Thus, the practical ramification of these statements of the Tana'im is <i>not</i> that a Kohen's lineage today is undoubted, but that <i>an ordinary person's</i> lineage (with regard to Mamzerus) is not doubted (and thus one may marry a person of uncertain lineage). The Binyan Tziyon cites additional sources in the Gemara which apparently disprove the rest of Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher's arguments.
</p><p>

HALACHAH: Although the <b>KAFTOR VA'FERACH</b> was in favor of bringing Korbanos nowadays, almost all Halachic authorities were vehemently opposed to bringing Korbanos nowadays. May the Beis ha'Mikdash be rebuilt speedily in our days. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> HESECH HA'DA'AS FROM EATING OR DRINKING <span class='indexentry'>[Seudah: Hesech ha'Da'as]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ravin):</span> They enlarged the Mizbe'ach in order that the Shisim (a pit into which the Nesachim flowed) would be within (under) the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	They reasoned that drinking ('consumption' of Nesachim) should be like eating (Korbanos that are burned, i.e. within the boundaries of the Mizbe'ach).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 103a:</span> Rava blessed Borei Peri ha'Gafen on the first cup, and again on the cup of Birkas ha'Mazon and drank it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rav Yakov bar Aba:</span> Granted, in the Reish Galusa's house we blessed a second time because we were unsure whether we will receive wine. Here, the cup is in front of us, and we plan to have it!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rava:</span> I did like Talmidim of Rav (after they accepted the words of Rav Yeiva):</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Rav Yeiva the elder was serving Rav Beruna and Rav Chananel, Talmidim of Rav, at a meal. They told him 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' (give us a cup of wine, and we will bless Birkas ha'Mazon).' They reconsidered and said 'give to us and we will drink.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rav Yeiva:</span> Rav says that once you said that you will bless, you may no longer drink! This is because you decided not to drink any more.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 42a:</span> Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan were served more food after the meal. Rav Papa ate.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Bei Rav Huna:</span> Don't you hold that after the meal, one may not eat?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rav Papa:</span> That is only if the bread was taken away.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Rava and R. Zeira ate at the Reish Galusa's house. After the serving tray was removed, more portions were sent to them. Rava ate, R. Zeira did not, and asked Rava why he ate.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rava:</span> We intend to eat more if the Reish Galusa will serve more to us (even after our tray was removed).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav):</span> If one normally anoints his hands with oil after eating, his meal does not end until he does so.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Kahana):</span> We normally anoint with oil after eating, so our meal does not end before this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	The Halachah does not follow these teachings. Rather, it is like R. Chiya bar Ashi, who said that one must bless right after washing.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	47a:</span> Rav and Shmuel were eating. Rav Simi bar Chiya came, and ate quickly.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rav:</span> Do you want to join for a Zimun? We already finished!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shmuel:</span> If they would bring dessert, wouldn't we eat?! (He may join.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	48a:</span> Yanai ha'Melech and his queen ate bread. They brought Shimon ben Shetach to bless for them, and gave the cup to him to bless.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Shimon ben Shetach:</span> I cannot bless, for I did not eat anything!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span>	He drank the cup. They gave him another cup, and he blessed (for everyone).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Pesachim 21a):</span> Once they said that they will bless, they diverted their minds from drinking. Therefore, if they want to drink, they must bless Borei Peri ha'Gafen.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Itsar):</span> Some say that after saying 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', they may not eat before blessing Birkas ha'Mazon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Berachos 30a):</span> Taking away the bread does not forbid eating more. Rather, the Halachah follows R. Chiya bar Ashi, who said that Berachah must immediately follow Netilas Yadayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yonah (Berachos 30a DH Ela):</span>  Once one decided not to eat more and said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', he may not drink wine before blessing. Bread is different. Even if he decided not to eat more and removed the table, as long as he did not wash Mayim Acharonim, he did not totally cease eating bread. After washing, he may not drink even with a Berachah. Since he washed, he must bless immediately.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Chulin Reish 29a):</span> If one was eating and decided not to eat more, even if he finished and even if he removed (the bread or table), he may eat until Netilas Yadayim. This is because eating has Keva. Sometimes one sits for a small meal, and it becomes a big meal. Drinking has no Keva. Therefore, if he reconsidered, he must bless again. Once Rav's Talmidim said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', they surely diverted their minds from drinking, so they must bless Borei Peri ha'Gafen. Also the Ra'avad says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (OC 179 DH v'Da'as):</span> The Ran must explain that Rav's Talmidim were not fixed to eat, rather, to drink. Even though it says 'they were sitting at a meal', and 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' connotes that they were eating, we can say that they ate a little in order to sweeten the drinking. Primarily, they were fixed to drink. It is better to explain that the Ran says that when they are fixed to eat, 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' ends drinking and they may not drink, but they may eat. However, if no Berachah is needed for eating, it is unreasonable to require a Berachah for drinking. Since it is the same meal, (the law of) drinking depends on (that of) eating. Also R. Yonah distinguishes between eating and drinking.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (179:2):</span> To answer his question, I say that if he just wants to drink more, he must bless. If he wants to eat more, and this arouses him to drink, then we say that drinking follows eating (so he need not bless on the drink). I say that this is only regarding what people normally drink for enjoyment, even without thirst.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 4:7):</span> If one decided not to eat or drink, and afterwards reconsidered to eat or drink, even though he did not change his place, he blesses again. If he did not decide (to stop eating or drinking), rather, he intended to eat or drink again, even if he paused the entire day, he need not bless again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</span> This was taught only regarding drinking, but not regarding eating. The only interruptions for eating are Mayim Acharonim or sleep.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rambam):</span> The Rambam is astounding. Rav Papa answered that as long as they did not remove the food from the table, there was no Hesech ha'Da'as, and he may eat. Rashi explains like this. We concluded that this is not the Halachah. Rather, Berachah must be right after washing. This shows that even if he resolved not to eat more and removed the food, he may return to eat as long as he did not wash. Why does the Rambam forbid eating after he finished?! Perhaps the Rambam holds that in the episode with Rav's Talmidim, once he said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' they may not drink because they diverted their minds from eating and drinking. This shows that anyone who resolved not to eat may not eat. Rav Papa was eating in another's house. When he finished the food in front of him, they told him that he may not eat more, for presumably, when he saw that he finished and they did not bring more right away, he diverted his mind from the food, for he thought that they will not bring more. Therefore, when they brought more, they told him to bless. He answered that as long as they did not remove the bread and table in front of the guest, he has no Hesech ha'Da'as from eating, so he does not need another Berachah. In the case at the Reish Galusa's house, Rava said 'we rely on the plate of the Reish Galusa.' This shows that it depends on Hesech ha'Da'as of the eater. They argue about when people normally have Hesech ha'Da'as. Therefore, the Rambam wrote Stam 'when he resolved not to eat or drink more and afterwards reconsidered, he must bless again.' The Rambam's text did not say 'the Halachah does not follow these teachings', rather, 'this is not the Halachah. Rather, the Halachah is like R. Chiya bar Ashi.' Before this, the Gemara taught that one who normally anoints with oil before blessing may not bless before anointing. The Gemara said that the Halachah does not follow *this*. Rather, one blesses immediately after washing, without interrupting for oil.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Berachos 6:31):</span> As long as one did not wash for Birkas ha'Mazon, he may eat. According to Rashi and the Rashbam, saying 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' is like washing. Some distinguish between eating and drinking. This is unreasonable.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Chulin 86b DH Kivan d'Amar):</span> Saying 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' shows that he finished eating. He may not drink without a Berachah Rishonah, for it does not join with his first meal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Pesachim 101b DH keshe'Hen):</span> Our Gemara connotes that when there is Hesech ha'Da'as, one may not bless ha'Motzi. He must bless Birkas ha'Mazon. If so, when we say (103b) 'you may not drink', this means until blessing Birkas ha'Mazon. Berachos 42a connotes like this. If there were no need to bless Birkas ha'Mazon before eating more, why did R. Zeira refuse? However, we can say that they were brought another food with bread, and it was hard for him to wash again. The Rashbam and R. Chananel explain like this, that Rav Yeiva said 'you may not drink until blessing Borei Peri ha'Gafen.' This is primary, for in Chulin, we say that a waiter blesses on every slice. It does not seem that he blesses Birkas ha'Mazon.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Berachos 42a DH Atacha):</span> If one forgot to eat the Afikoman, and said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', this is not Hesech ha'Da'as. We rely on Hashem's plate. If the Ba'al ha'Bayis says 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', all are forbidden to eat. If a guest says so, they are permitted, and even he may return and eat with his host.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (42a DH Tekef):</span> Once one washed Mayim Acharonim, he may not eat until he blesses. The same applies if he said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', even without washing.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (47a DH Ilu):</span> It seems that the Halachah follows Shmuel. However if they said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', they diverted their minds from eating, so a third does not join with them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (OC 179:1 DH v'Achilah):</span> Tosfos holds that 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' obligates Birkas ha'Mazon before eating, but the episode with Shimon ben Shetach shows that the primary opinion is that of R. Yonah. This answers the question of Tosfos in Pesachim. Al the Amora'im in our Sugya hold that removing (the bread) is like Netilas Yadayim. The Halachah does not follow them. Only Netilas Yadayim obligates Birkas ha'Mazon.</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 179:1):</span> If one finished his meal and washed Mayim Acharonim, he may not eat or drink before blessing Birkas ha'Mazon. If he said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', this is Hesech ha'Da'as, and he may not drink before blessing first on it (the drink).  The Rosh holds that eating is like drinking. R. Yonah and the Ran hold that eating is different, and he need not bless again. Even if he ceased eating and removed the table, he may eat more without another Berachah. As long as he did not wash his hands, he did not totally cease eating.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH Aval):</span> R. Yonah derives from the fact that the Gemara mentioned Netilas Yadayim. This implies that 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' does not forbid eating. Therefore, removing (the bread) does not help (to obligate a new Berachah before eating more), even though it helps for drinking. We say that the Halachah does not follow the above teachings, for they discuss eating. Shimon ben Shetach was able to join Yanai in a Zimun, even though they already said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech'. Other Chachamim argued with him, but only because he only drank wine and did not eat bread.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (2):</span> L'Chatchilah, whether he said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' or washed Mayim Acharonim, he should not eat or drink more. If he must, he blesses a Berachah Rishonah. However, if he only said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' and now he wants to *eat*, he only thinks the Berachah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (7):</span> Even though R. Yonah holds that removing the table is a bigger Hesech ha'Da'as than 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', it does not help for eating.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> Many Poskim hold like the Rosh, that 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech' is the end of the meal, and one may not even eat without a Berachah. The Mechaber brought only this opinion in Siman 197. Therefore, l'Chatchilah one should be careful not to eat after 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech'. One who must bless (ha'Motzi) in the middle of a meal must also wash (Mayim Rishonim). Since he had Hesech ha'Da'as, he ceased to guard his hands. However, he does not bless Al Netilas Yadayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</span> R. Yonah holds that deciding not to eat more is like 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', and one may not drink wine without a Berachah. Other drinks are permitted without a Berachah. The Rambam says that this obligates a Berachah Rishonah even for food, and Darchei Moshe says that Rashi and the Rashbam agree, so one should not eat or drink after resolving not to eat more.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (197:1):</span> If two were eating, and they said 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech', and a third came, he does not join with them for a Zimun.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Mayim Acharonim is like 'Hav Lan u'Nevarech'.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) TRAVELING WITH THE FIRE ON THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara says that the fire that descended from Shamayim during the times of Moshe Rabeinu remained on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon (the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes) until the times of Shlomo ha'Melech. The fire that descended from Shamayim during the times of Shlomo ha'Melech remained on the Mizbe'ach until Menasheh removed it.
</p><p>
This statement is puzzling. <b>RASHI</b> in his commentary on Chumash (Shemos 30:3) cites the Mechilta which contrasts the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores to the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes. The verse says that the Mizbe'ach ha'Ketores had a solid top, while, says the Mechilta, the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes did not have such a top. The Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes was transported merely as a frame, and at each stop in the desert its hollow interior was filled with dirt. The <b>NETZIV</b> in <b>HA'EMEK DAVAR</b> (Shemos 27:2) questions Rashi's words from the Gemara here, which states that the fire descended and stayed on the Mizbe'ach. If the earth inside of the hollow of the Mizbe'ach was removed and the Mizbe'ach dismantled each time the Jewish people embarked on a new journey, then where was the fire?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>NETZIV</b> explains that the Gemara argues with the Mechilta and maintains that the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes <i>did</i> have a top on which the fire rested even during the journeys. He finds support for this assertion in the Midrash Tanchuma. He explains that the way the Mizbe'ach was filled with earth was through the <i>bottom</i> of the Mizbe'ach, which had no floor. Upon their arrival at a new location, the Jewish people would make a mound of earth and place the Mizbe'ach over it, effectively filling the Mizbe'ach with earth. When they would leave, they would lift the Mizbe'ach, leaving the earth in its place.
</p><p>
This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>KEREISI U'PLEISI</b> (43:5). The Gemara in Chagigah (27a) derives through a Kal va'Chomer from the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav that the fire of Gehinom does not affect the transgressors among the Jewish people. Even though the gold covering the top of the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was only the thickness of a Dinar coin, it was not diminished at all throughout the years that it had a fire burning on it. Certainly, then, the transgressors among the Jewish people -- who are full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate -- will not be affected by the fire of Gehinom (see Insights to Chagigah 27a).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Chagigah there (DH she'Ein) is bothered by a question, as the Kereisi u'Pleisi explains his words. Why does the Gemara learn this Kal va'Chomer from the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, and not from the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes? The only thing offered on the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav was the Ketores offering, which was burned there once at the beginning of the day and once at the end of the day. There was much more activity on the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes, which had a fire on it at all times, and it too had a coating of gold that did not diminish!
</p><p>
Since the Kereisi u'Pleisi says that the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes had a coating of gold on its top, it is clear that he maintains that the Mizbe'ach had a top, like its counterpart, the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav.
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara here may be understood even according to Rashi's assertion that the Mizbe'ach ha'Nechoshes had no top, based on the words of the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#6). Rashi here (DH Lo Nistalkah) comments that while the Jewish people traveled in the desert, they used to turn a certain type of vessel over the fire on the Mizbe'ach to preserve the fire. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Toras Kohanim (Tzav 2:10; see <b>RASH MI'SHANTZ</b>), and not the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says that the fire was removed from the Mizbe'ach. This is also the way Rashi explains in Bamidbar (4:13), where he says that the cover of the Mizbe'ach was not burned by the fire underneath it while traveling, due to the vessel which was placed over the fire. If there was no actual top to the Mizbe'ach, though (but rather its frame was filled to the top with earth), and the earth inside of it was removed when the people traveled, where could they place the vessel to contain the fire? The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that they placed the vessel 'over the edge' of the Mizbe'ach. This means that the fire on the Mizbe'ach remained on top of the frame of the Mizbe'ach, covered by this vessel. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE VESSELS OF THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Beraisa states that if any of the measurements of the Mizbe'ach (length, width, or height) is not exactly as described in the verse, the Mizbe'ach still may be used and the Korbanos brought upon it are not considered Pasul.
</p><p>
However, this seems to contradict the Gemara in Sanhedrin (16b). The Gemara there teaches that the words, 'like all that I show you... and so shall you do,' in the verse that describes the building of the Mishkan (Shemos 25:9) teaches that the instructions described by the Torah for the construction of all of the vessels in the Beis ha'Mikdash should be followed for all generations. Rashi (to Shemos 25:9) elaborates on this and explains that if a vessel becomes lost, or a new vessel is made for the Beis ha'Mikdash (such as the Shulchan, Menorah, Mizbe'ach, etc.), then the new vessel should be made in the form described by the Torah. This implies that there is an obligation to make the vessels of the Beis ha'Mikdash in the same form as those in the Mishkan. How is that Gemara to be reconciled with the Beraisa here which says that the wrong measurements do not disqualify the Mizbe'ach?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>RE'EM</b> (to Shemos 25:9) answers that Rashi does not mean that the vessels of both the Mishkan and the Beis ha'Mikdash must be <i>exactly</i> the same size. Rather, he explains that Rashi means that the length and width must be of a similar <i>ratio</i>. Just as the Mizbe'ach of Moshe Rabeinu was a square of five by five Amos, so, too, the Mizbe'ach of Shlomo was a square, of twenty by twenty Amos.
</p><p>
Even though the ratio of the height of Shlomo's Mizbe'ach did not match the ratio of the height of Moshe's Mizbe'ach, the Re'em asserts that there must have been an oral tradition passed down from Moshe Rabeinu teaching that the verse means that only the length and width should be of an equal ratio, and not the height.
</p><p>
The Re'em supports his explanation from the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Shabbos (98b, DH Dal). The Gemara there states that the width of the Mishkan was ten Amos. Tosfos asks how the Gemara knows this, and he quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who answers that the width of the Mishkan can be derived from the measurements of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The measurements of the Beis ha'Mikdash were sixty Amos long and twenty Amos wide; its width was one third of its length. The length of the Mishkan was thirty Amos. It follows, proportionately, that the width of the Mishkan was ten Amos, or a third of its length. According to the Re'em, this is in fulfillment of the verse that requires the Beis ha'Mikdash to be similar in measurement to the Mishkan.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>GUR ARYEH</b> and the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAIM</b> answer that the verse (Shemos 25:9) refers only to the form of the vessels and not to the structure of the Beis ha'Mikdash itself. This is apparent from the much larger Beis ha'Mikdash built by Shlomo. The Mizbe'ach built by Shlomo was connected to the ground, thereby making it a structural item -- part of the Beis ha'Mikdash itself -- which did not need to adhere to the measurements of the movable Mizbe'ach of the Mishkan.
</p><p>
(c) Alternatively, the Or ha'Chaim answers that the Gemara here teaches that the Torah says that certain things are necessary components of the Mizbe'ach, such as the corners (Keranos), the ramp, the Yesod, and the requirement that it must be square. The Gemara derives this from the fact that the Torah says 'ha'Mizbe'ach' with regard to all of these components, indicating that they are essential components of the Mizbe'ach. The fact that the Torah does not say 'ha'Mizbe'ach' with regard to the measurements of the Mizbe'ach teaches that the Torah specifically does <i>not</i> make the exact measurements an essential requirement. This is the source that the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash does not have to be the same size as its counterpart in the Mishkan, unlike the other vessels which must be like their counterparts in the Mishkan. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> THE THREE STEPS BACK AFTER TEFILAH <span class='indexentry'>[Tefilah:three steps]</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. Shimon ben Yosi ben Lekunya):</span> Did R. Shimon say that there is a space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Yosi):</span> Don't you agree? 'V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam' - just like blood of an Olah is thrown (on two edges of the Mizbe'ach), also the meat is thrown (across the space, to the fire).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Shimon ben Yosi):</span> I say that he stands next to the Ma'arachah and throws the meat!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Yosi):</span> Obviously, he must throw to a part of the Ma'arachah that is aflame! It is impossible (for the flame to reach to where the Kohen stands. Rather, the verse teaches that he throws over a space.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</span> You cannot say that he stands next to the Ma'arachah and throws. The verse equates meat to blood, which is thrown through air over the ground.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yehudah):</span> Two small ramps emerged from the main ramp. One led to the Yesod, and the other led to the Sovev. They did not touch the Mizbe'ach. They were separated by a hair's breadth, for it says 'Saviv'. (It must be possible to put something around the Mizbe'ach, i.e. nothing touches it externally.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> The ramp and the Mizbe'ach (together) occupied 62 Amos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Together they occupy 64! (Each of them was 32 Amos),</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The ramp overlaps one Amah that the Yesod juts out, and one Amah of the Sovev.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yoma 53b:</span> R. Alexandri: One who prays must take three steps back (afterwards). After this, he gives Shalom.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One who prays must take three steps backwards (afterwards). If he does not do so, it would have been better had he not prayed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	Shemayah says, first he gives Shalom to the right, then he gives Shalom to the left. We learn from 'Mi'Mino Esh Das Lamo' and 'Yipol mi'Tzidcha Elef u'Rvavah mi'Minecha'.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	Rava saw Abaye he gives Shalom to his right before to his left.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rava:</span> One does not gives Shalom to *his* right first. Rather, he gives Shalom to *his* left, which is Hashem's right.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Chiya brei d'Rav Huna:</span> I saw Abaye and Rava take three steps back in one Keri'ah (bowing).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Berachos 28b (R. Tanchum):</span> The 18 blessings in Shemoneh Esre correspond to the 18 vertebrae in the spine;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Tanchum):</span> When praying, one must bow until all the vertebrae in the spine protrude.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ula):</span> He must bow until he could see a coin on the ground even with his heart.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Chanina):</span> As long as he moves his head, this is not necessary.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> This is only if he is in pain and looks like he wants to bow.</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 5:10):</span> When one finishes Tefilah he bows and takes three steps back. While bowing he gives Shalom to his left, then to his right, then he lifts his head.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (50):</span> One begins to step back with the left foot.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shibolei ha'Leket (18):</span> Medrash Shochar Tov (35) says that each limb praises Hashem. The right foot is used for Chalitzah. The left foot begins the three steps. The Ge'onim say that one takes three steps back because one who prays stands in a Kodesh place. The Shechinah is above his head - 'Shavisi Hashem l'Negdi Tamid.' Within four Amos of where he stood is Kodesh. We learn from the Isur to sit within four Amos of someone praying. Therefore, one who finishes praying must take three steps back to leave the place of Kedushah. A proof is that after stepping back, people give Shalom to each other. I.e. until now they were in a Kodesh place, and now they are in Chol.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (60):</span> The Re'em says that the Gemara does not mean that he says 'Shalom to my left' and 'Shalom to my right.' Rather, when he says 'Oseh Shalom bi'Mromav' he turns his face to his left. While saying 'v'Hu Ya'aseh Shalom' he turns his face to his right.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mekoros in Frankel Rambam:</span> Maharam holds like the Perush that Re'em rejects. The Rambam does not mention saying 'Oseh Shalom' or 'v'Hu Ya'aseh Shalom.' Rav Sadya Gaon says that he faces left and right without saying anything.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (11):</span> He bows first to his left, for this is the right side of one who faces him. He is standing in front of the King, and gives Shalom to the King's right, and then to His left. They enacted to leave Tefilah like one who leaves the king.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Mano'ach:</span> Some say that he begins to his left to show honor to the Tefilin (on his left arm).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> We do so for all Tefilos, even though (even if people used to wear Tefilin all day, including Minchah) at almost half of all Tefilos we do not wear Tefilin (night, Shabbos and Mo'adim), and most people do not wear Tefilin (women, children and some sick people).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (12):</span> In all of these bowings, one bows enough so that all of the vertebrae stick out and it becomes like a bow. If one bowed a little and pained himself and it is evident that he bows with all his strength, he need not be concerned.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Mano'ach:</span> The vertebrae stick out only if he bows his hand and becomes bent like a bow. It depends only on intent, so even a little suffices if he is pained. It must be evident, lest people suspect that he cast off Hashem's yoke.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (9:4):</span> When the Shali'ach Tzibur reaches Modim, everyone bows a little. They should not bow too much.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (3):</span> The Yerushalmi discusses a man who bowed too much. Some say that R. Ami removed him, and some say that he rebuked him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (OC 127 DH Kosav ha'Rambam):</span> 'Removed him' applies only to a Shali'ach Tzibur. Perhaps the Rambam teaches that no one should bow too much; the case recorded happened to involve a Shali'ach Tzibur. Alternatively, he rules like the latter version, which says that R. Ami just rebuked him, for he was not a Shali'ach Tzibur. Bowing too much is due to haughtiness; it applies also in other places that we bow. Tosfos, Semag, Semak and Hagahos Maimoniyos connote like this. Mahari Avuhav holds that it is only during Chazaras ha'Shatz. Since the Tzibur already prayed, and now they bow merely lest they appear to deny (that we must thank Hashem), it suffices to bow a little, so bowing too much is haughtiness.</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 123:1):</span> (After Tefilah) one takes three steps back in one bowing.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Beis Yosef DH Chosav Od):</span> We take three steps corresponding to three Mil that Benei Yisrael distanced themselves from Har Sinai (out of fear of the Shechinah) at the time of Matan Torah. Also, Moshe entered darkness, cloud and Arafel (thick cloud) to speak to Hashem, and similarly left these three afterwards (Medrash). Shibolei ha'Leket cites Ge'onim who say that since when a person prays he is in a Kodesh place, afterwards he must return to Chol. Rav Hai Gaon says that it is because Tefilos correspond to Korbanos, and there were three Rovdim (stratums) of rock between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach. A Kohen descending from the Mizbe'ach would traverse them walking backwards. R. Mano'ach says that we learn from 'v'Ragleihem Regel Yesharah' (the plural teaches two, and the singular another one). The Avudaraham says that we learn another three from (the continuation of the verse) 'v'Chaf Ragleihem k'Chaf Regel Egel'. One must walk another three steps to return to his place, making six in all.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Binyan Tziyon (12):</span> What was Rav Hai Gaon's source to say that there were three Rovdim between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach? Rav Papa said that the verse equates meat to blood, which is thrown through air over the ground. Tosfos says that the meat does not really pass over the ground, for the Amah and Sovev jut out over the ground. Even without the verse, some space is needed around the Mizbe'ach, for it says 'Saviv.' Any amount would have sufficed for that. Here we require a large amount for the sake of having air in between. We can say that Rav Hai Gaon holds that the Kohen stood on the ramp and truly threw the meat over the ground. The ramp towered over the ground, the Yesod and the Sovev. After throwing the meat, the Kohen went to the Ma'arachah to arrange the limbs on the fire. When he returned, he needed to step back on Rovdim over these three (the ground, Yesod and Sovev).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (1):</span> Some say that the three steps are because Nebuchadnetzar merited to destroy the Beis ha'Mikdash in the merit of three steps taken to honor Hashem (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 3:6. According to Sanhedrin 96a, he took four steps.) This is why afterwards we pray for the Mikdash to be rebuilt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (6):</span> According to the Avudaraham, who says that one takes another three steps to return to his place, no one should walk in front of him before he returns, for this interrupts the six steps.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> One should bow enough so that all of the vertebrae stick out.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> Before straightening up, while saying Oseh Shalom bi'Mromav he turns to his left; while saying Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Aleinu he turns to his right; afterwards he bows in front, like a Talmid taking leave of his Rebbi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Mordechai Berachos 111 citing Avi ha'Ezri):</span> While saying Oseh Shalom he turns to his left. While saying Ya'aseh Shalom Aleinu he turns to his right. He concludes Al Kol Yisrael. The custom is to bow in front like a Talmid taking leave of his Rebbi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (3):</span> The same applies to the three steps at the end of Kaddish.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (7):</span> The Zohar says that he bows to his left, straightens up, bows to his left, and straightens up. Afterwards he bows in front, like one leaving his master.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (8):</span> Even one who prays alone concludes 'v'Imru Amen.' He says this to the angels.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 3):</span> The three steps after Tefilah begin with the left foot.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Beis Yosef DH v'Chasuv):</span> Medrash Tehilim (Sof Perek 35) says that the three steps after Tefilah begin with the left foot. Orchos Chayim (28) says that the three steps before Tefilah begin with the right foot, for whenever one turns he should turn to the right (Yoma 58b). Also, when one begins to walk he moves his right foot first (Menachos 34a). Sefer ha'Mafte'ach says that we begin the steps back with the right foot. One should follow the Medrash. Turning to the right does not apply here, for he does not turn to either side.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (10):</span> We begin with the left to show that we are reluctant to depart from the Shechinah. (Similarly, we remove Tefilin Shel Rosh with the left hand.) Therefore, a lefty begins with his weak (right) foot. Some say that we begin with the left to show honor to the Shechinah (it is to the right of the Shechinah; if so, the same applies to a lefty). Some say that three times he steps back with the left and brings his right foot even with his left.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> In each step, the toe goes even with or in back of the heel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Chosav Od):</span> This is how Kohanim walk. Similarly, in each step forward (before Tefilah) the heel should go even with or in front of the toe of the other foot (Orchos Chayim 28).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (DH Mihu):</span> When possible one must take steps this size. When it is cramped one may rely on the Rashba who says that there is no Shi'ur to the size of the steps.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Magen Avraham 10):</span> The Rashba means that the steps need not be as long as normal steps (an Amah each), but he agrees that less than from toe to heel is not called a step.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (14):</span> Steps smaller than this are not considered steps at all. Poskim argue about whether or not one may be lenient when it is cramped. One may not step back at all into the four Amos in front of someone who is still praying Shemoneh Esre behind him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (13):</span> The first step is a half step (for the feet were even at the start). The second step is a full step (the right foot goes from in front to in back), the third step is a half step (he brings the left foot even with the right).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> L'Chatchilah, one should not take steps larger than this.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Magen Avraham 10):</span> This is like Kohanim. Also, one does not want to appear like he runs away from the Shechinah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Source (Gra DH ul'Chatchilah):</span> It is forbidden to take big steps when leaving a Beis ha'Keneses (Berachos 6b), and all the more so after Tefilah.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: 'BNEI KETURAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The title 'Bnei Keturah' is used in reference to two groups of people. Earlier (62a), Rav Yosef uses this title to refer to the people who erroneously dismissed his statement. The Gemara here (62b) relates another incident involving the nephews of Rebbi Tarfon. The nephews were sitting with Rebbi Tarfon in silence (see <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> #1), and Rebbi Tarfon quoted the verse, 'va'Yosef Avraham va'Yikach Ishah u'Shemah Keturah' -- 'and Avraham took an additional wife, and her name was Keturah' (Bereishis 25:1). However, instead of quoting the verse as it is written and saying, 'Keturah,' he said, 'and her name was Yochani.' His nephews corrected him and said, 'It says 'Keturah'!' He replied that they themselves are 'Bnei Keturah.' What is the significance of this remark?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Bnei Keturah) explains that Rebbi Tarfon was telling his nephews that they are like sons of Avraham, but not like the offspring of Yitzchak and Yakov.
</p><p>
What does Rashi mean? What exactly did they do that made them only like the other descendants of Avraham, and not like the descendants of Yitzchak and Yakov? Moreover, the <b>MAHARSHA</b> asks, according to this explanation, why did Rebbi Tarfon not call them 'Bnei Esav'?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> writes that the Gemara may be understood based on the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Melachim 10:8). The Rambam states that Bnei Keturah are still commanded to perform Milah (unlike the opinion of Rashi, who maintains that they are not commanded to perform Milah). According to the Rambam, perhaps the reason why Rebbi Tarfon referred to his nephews as 'Bnei Keturah' was in order to tell them that merely having a Bris Milah does not make them unique, since Bnei Keturah, who are not Jewish, also must have a Milah.
</p><p>
(c) Alternatively, the Maharsha explains that this could have been merely a way of rebuking them, as is found in other places in the Gemara (see Insights to Bava Kama 65:2 and Zevachim 25:2). Why, though, did he choose to rebuke them with the term 'Bnei Keturah' and not 'Bnei Esav'? Since Esav was a Rasha, Rebbi Tarfon did not want to slight his brother by calling his nephews the sons of Esav. Keturah, however, was actually Hagar, who was not a Rasha. This is apparent from the Midrash Tanchuma (ch. 8) which asks that if her real name was Hagar, then why does the Torah call her Keturah and not Hagar? The Midrash answers that the Torah is teaching that her actions were pleasing like Ketores. Rebbi Tarfon wanted to rebuke them in an honorable way, and, therefore, he used the term 'Bnei Keturah.'
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that the Maharsha does not explain why Rav Yosef -- who was not referring to his own nephews when he used the term 'Bnei Keturah' -- did not use any other term, such as 'Bnei Esav.' Although one may suggest that such a term would not have been appropriate for non-relatives as well, this does not seem to be the intention of the Maharsha.
</p><p>
The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> explains that Rav Yosef wanted to convey a specific message by calling them 'Bnei Keturah.' Rav Yosef meant to teach (as Abaye interpreted his view) that the Ma'arachah (where the fire was located) of the Mizbe'ach of Moshe Rabeinu was one Amah. The students misunderstood his statement as a reference to the entire Mizbe'ach, which the Torah says was much larger than one Amah. Rav Yosef was alluding to the lesson taught by Bar Kapara in the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 61:4). Bar Kapara teaches that whenever Hash-m gives a primary object and a secondary object, the secondary object is larger than the primary one. One of his examples is that of Yishmael and the Bnei Keturah. Yishmael was the primary son of Avraham from Hagar, and yet the secondary sons, the Bnei Keturah, were much greater in number than Yishmael. Rav Yosef was alluding to the students' error. His statement was a reference to the main part of the Mizbe'ach, not to the secondary parts. In choosing to think only of the other parts of the Mizbe'ach, the students were looking at the secondary addition, which is comparable to the role of Bnei Keturah relative to Yishmael.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> explains that Rav Yosef's comment was directly related to the subject matter under discussion. The Gemara earlier (59b) records a dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah with regard to the size of the Ma'arachah (see Rashi there, DH Elef and DH Af). Rav Yosef ruled like Rebbi Yosi who said that the Ma'arachah was one Amah. The students who argued with Rav Yosef followed the view of Rebbi Yehudah who said that the Ma'arachah itself was six square Amos, which is why they could not understand how Rav Yosef could say that it was only one Amah. The Gemara (60a) explains that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the entire floor of the Azarah must have the same degree of Kedushah as the Mizbe'ach. Rav Yosef responded to these students that they are 'Bnei Keturah'; he used the word 'Keturah' in the sense of 'burning.' He was declaring that if the students cannot understand his statement, then it is because they follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah who says that Korbanos may be burned in a large area, even on the floor of the Azarah.
</p><p>
The Panim Me'iros explains that when Rebbi Tarfon called his nephews 'Bnei Keturah,' he used the word 'Keturah' in the sense of being 'tied' ('Kashur,' or 'Katur' in Aramaic). He wanted to rebuke them for not speaking about Torah matters. To rebuke them, he called them people whose mouths are 'tied up.' (See Bereishis Rabah 61:4, where the Midrash also translates 'Keturah' in such a manner.)
</p><p>
(e) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> bases his explanation on the Midrash ha'Ne'elam. The Midrash states that possessing a logical cognitive process -- which is used for thinking about and analyzing Torah issues -- is a trait which Avraham bequeathed only to Yitzchak. When the students misunderstood Rav Yosef, he criticized them as being 'Bnei Keturah' -- they do not have correct thoughts in learning and are like Bnei Keturah who did not receive this trait from Avraham. Similarly, when Rebbi Tarfon saw that his nephews were sitting in silence, neither talking about Torah matters nor listening to someone talk about Torah matters, he was concerned that they were not using the ability of logical thought and analysis that was passed down to them as descendants of Yitzchak. Rebbi Tarfon alerted them to this concern by calling them 'Bnei Keturah.' (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) EATING 'KODSHEI KODASHIM' IN THE 'KODESH HA'KODASHIM'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah teaches that if Nochrim besiege the Azarah with arrows and other artillery, making it impossible for the Kohanim to enter the Azarah in order to eat Kodshim, the Kohanim may enter the Heichal (as the text appears in Menachos 8b, and as emended by the Shitah Mekubetzes here) and eat Kodshei Kodashim there. He derives this from the verse, 'ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Tochlenu' -- 'in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim you shall eat it' (Bamidbar 18:10).
</p><p>
Does this verse permit the Kohanim to eat Kodshim only in the Heichal, or even in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (to Bamidbar 18:10, quoting the Sifri) writes that Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah's teaching applies to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim as well. He chose to mention the Heichal, but he also could have said that if the Heichal was surrounded, then the Kohanim could enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim and eat their Kodshei Kodashim there. This also seems to be the straightforward meaning of the verse, which uses the term, 'Kodesh ha'Kodashim,' instead of 'Ohel Mo'ed.'
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AR MORDECHAI</b> cites proof for the Ramban's view from the Gemara earlier (56a) which says that the area of the Azarah was 187 Amos by 135 Amos, which includes the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Rav Nachman there says in the name of his father that throughout all of this area, the Kohanim may eat Kodshei Kodashim, thus including the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in the area in which the Kohanim may eat their Kodshim.
</p><p>
The <b>MINCHAS CHINUCH</b> (Mitzvah 184:6) says that this ruling is relevant to another question. The Minchas Chinuch inquires what the Halachah would be in a case in which one enters the Heichal in order to eat the meat of a Korban at a time when Nochrim are <i>not</i> besieging the Azarah. Would he receive Malkus, just as a Kohen who enters the Heichal for no reason receives Malkus, or does the prohibition to enter the Heichal for no reason not apply since the Torah explicitly permits entering the Heichal in order to eat Kodshim there at a time when Nochrim are besieging the Azarah? The Minchas Chinuch suggests that once the Torah permitted entering the Heichal during a siege, it is not included in the prohibition at all. He comments that if this logic is extended to the opinion of the Ramban, then one who walks into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim to eat Kodshei Kodashim should not be punished by Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, since it is not included in the prohibition against walking into the Kodesh ha'Kodashim for no reason.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>IBN EZRA</b> (to Bamidbar 18:10) asserts that the words 'Kodesh ha'Kodashim' in the verse refer to the Heichal, and not to the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Why, then, does the verse say 'Kodesh ha'Kodashim'? He answers that when compared with the Chatzer of the Mishkan, the Heichal is considered Kodesh ha'Kodashim.
</p><p>
The <b>RE'EM</b> also argues with the Ramban. He asserts that only the Heichal can be considered a place fit for eating Kodshim, because the Heichal is a place into which the Kohanim are permitted to enter when there is a need. In contrast, no ordinary Kohen (Kohen Hedyot, as opposed to the Kohen Gadol) is ever permitted to enter the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. Moreover, entering the Kodesh ha'Kodashim entails a more severe Lav, one punishable with Misah b'Yedei Shamayim, and thus a positive commandment to eat Kodshim should not override such a severe Isur. (See also <b>KIRYAS SEFER</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 11:3.)
</p><p>
(This also seems to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> (DH ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim), who says that the words 'ba'Kodesh ha'Kodashim' refer to the Heichal. However, it could be that Rashi intends merely to point out that the verse is saying that Kodshim may be eaten in another place other than the Azarah, since the Azarah is already mentioned in a different verse (Vayikra 6:9). He might not be excluding the Kodesh ha'Kodashim from the intention of the verse.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST ONE REDEEM HIS WIFE FOR MORE THAN HER KESUVAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Pidyon Shevuyim: wife]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> If Shelamim was slaughtered in the Heichal, it is Kosher;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	It says 'u'Shchato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed' - the Tafel (secondary, i.e. the Azarah, which is valid for Shechitah only because it faces the Heichal) should not be greater (more Kosher) than the Ikar (what is primary, i.e. the Heichal)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesuvos 52a (Beraisa #1):</span> If captors demand up to 10 times a woman's value, the first time, her husband must redeem her. After this, it is his choice;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we do not redeem captives for more than their value. This is an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam (for the good of society).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Up to her value we redeem, even if it exceeds her Kesuvah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</span> If the captors demanded up to 10 times her value, the first time, he must redeem her. After this, it is his choice;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if her redemption does not exceed her Kesuvah, he must redeem her. If it is more, he is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient both ways. (One need not pay more than her value, nor more than her Kesuvah.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gitin 45a (Mishnah):</span> We do not redeem captives for more than their value. This is a decree for Tikun ha'Olam.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Is this to avoid depleting the community's money, or lest we incite captors (to strive to capture more people, or to demand more money)?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter for 13,000 gold coins. (We are not concerned for inciting captors, only for the Tzibur's money.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (Abaye):</span> Perhaps Chachamim disapproved!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Erchin 23b (Mishnah):</span> If Reuven owes Erchin, even though we take a security from him, we leave him with food for 30 days, clothes for a year, a bed and sheet, shoes, and Tefilin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	We leave for him, but not for his wife and children.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	24a:</span> We learn from '*Hu* me'Erkecha' - sustain him from the Erech, but not his wife and children.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Horayos 13a (Mishnah):</span> A man precedes a woman regarding sustaining their lives and returning a lost object;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span>	A woman precedes a man for clothing and redemption from captivity. If both are destined for sexual exploitation (regarding him, homosexuality), we redeem the man first.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> If Reuven, his father and his Rebbi are all in captivity, Reuven first redeems himself, then his Rebbi, then his father.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If his mother was captured, he redeems her before all of them.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Kesuvos 19a):</span> The Halachah follows R. Shimon (ben Gamliel) in Beraisa #1, and Rebbi in Beraisa #2. (In the Rif's and Rosh's text, the first Tana is Rebbi.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Kesuvos 4:22):</span> The Rif rules like R. Shimon because the Stam Mishnah in Gitin is like him. The Mishnah discusses captives Stam, even one's wife. The Ramah rules like the first Tana, for it is the majority opinion. The Mishnah in Gitin discusses other captives. One's wife is like himself. Just like one may give all his money to redeem himself, also for one's wife. Since this is a Tanai of the Kesuvah, it is as if she has money (to redeem herself). This seems correct. Rashi totally exempts from redeeming her more than once. Some say that he need not redeem her more than once for more than her Kesuvah. Presumably, Rashi is correct. Why should the second redemption be different than the first?! If he must redeem her, just like for the first redemption they made Tafel Chamur Min ha'Ikar, also for the second! The Rif rules like Rebbi. Even though the Halachah follows Rebbi against his *colleague*, but not against R. Shimon ben Gamliel his father, here the Mishnah is like Rebbi, for it says Stam that he must redeem her, i.e. in any case, even for more than her Kesuvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 14:19):</span> We do not obligate a husband to redeem his wife for more than her value, rather, for her value, like other captives. If her value was more than her Kesuvah, and he said 'I divorce her. This is her Kesuvah. Let her redeem herself', we do not heed him. Rather, we force him to redeem her, even if she is worth 10 times her Kesuvah, and even if he has only enough money to redeem her. This refers to the first time. If he redeemed her and she was captured again and he wanted to divorce her, he may divorce her and pay her Kesuvah, and she redeems herself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (EH 78 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Afilu):</span> The Rambam rules like R. Shimon ben Gamliel because the Stam Mishnah in Gitin is like him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:12):</span> We do not redeem captives for more than their value. This is for Tikun ha'Olam, lest the enemy exert excessively to capture people.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Gitin 4:44) and Tosfos (Kesuvos 52a DH v'Hayu):</span> Why didn't we resolve the reason for the enactment from the Beraisa that obligates redeeming one's wife for 10 times her value? This shows that the concern is for the Tzibur's money, but not lest we incite captors! We cannot resolve it, for one's wife is like himself. There was no enactment not to give all one's money to redeem himself. We tried to resolve it from Levi bar Darga, for one's daughter is not like himself so much.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Gitin 23a DH v'Ein):</span> Some say that even though the question was not settled here, it is settled in Kesuvos. R. Shimon forbids redeeming for more than her value, even when her husband redeems her and there is no concern for the Tzibur's money. We cannot say that the first Tana agrees to our Mishnah, but he holds that the enactment was lest we deplete the Tzibur's money. If so, all the more so we should not deplete the husband's money, and exempt him from redeeming her for more than her value! The Rishonim held that since the question was not settled, and there is concern for Takalah, we are passive not to redeem. Also, we proved from Levi bar Darga that one may redeem for any amount. We do not abandon this due to Abaye's doubt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (YD 252:3):</span> The Ran holds that the Tzibur does not redeem people for more than their value, and one need not do so for his wife, but one may redeem her or anyone for as much as he wants. The Beis Yosef understood that the Ran forbids redeeming anyone for more than his value, like the Rif. This is wrong.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (52a DH Ratzah):</span> Rashi says that Chachamim enacted to redeem her only once. This is difficult, for above (47b) the Gemara said that Chachamim enacted what is common due to what is common, and what is uncommon due to what is uncommon. I.e. eating her Peros is common, and redemption is more common than Kesuvah or burial, for the latter apply only once, but redemption can occur several times! Rashi must explain oppositely. Eating her Peros is uncommon (not all women have property), and Kesuvah and burial are common, for women die earlier than men. R. Chananel explains that the second time he need not redeem her for more than her value. Another Beraisa implies that he need not pay more than her Kesuvah. We must say that both leniencies apply. However, the Gemara connoted that we must say so only according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Kesuvos 288):</span> Reuven was captured, and also his wife for another reason. They were torturing her. Her relatives compromised with the captors. Can they take her redemption money from Shimon, who was holding a deposit of Reuven? Do we say that as long as he himself did not compromise with them, and he does not know how much he will need to redeem himself, that his life comes first? (If they redeem her, perhaps not enough will remain for him.) Maharam answered that one comes before his wife regarding Sidur for a borrower (leaving for him his necessities) and Erchin. In Erchin, we learn this from verses. Even though he has precedence regarding food, she has precedence regarding redemption, like it says in Horayos. His mother has precedence over all of them, including himself. His life has precedence over his father or Rebbi. We should say all the more so over his mother, who has less priority regarding fear and honor (for she must honor his father, i.e. her husband). Even so, for redemption from captivity his mother comes first, lest they defile her. This shows that whenever he must redeem a woman, she comes before him. Even if there is no Beis Din here, we take from his property to redeem her. If one went crazy or went overseas, Beis Din feeds his wife from his property. All the more so, we do so to redeem from captivity, for captives suffer all the great afflictions (hunger, natural death, and death by the sword). Even if he protests, we redeem her against his will from his property. He cannot cast her upon the Tzibur if he has property! However, if both are standing for sexual exploitation, we redeem him first. The same applies whenever there is concern for his ruin or disgrace.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (EH 78:2):</span> We do not obligate a husband to redeem his wife for more than her value, rather, for her value, like other captives.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that his wife is like himself, and he may redeem her for all his money.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chelkas Mechokek (2):</span> The Mechaber connotes that one may redeem his wife for more than her value if he wants. If so, the Rema should say that some *obligate* redeeming her for whatever he can afford! The Mechaber is difficult. He rules like R. Shimon (ben Gamliel), and R. Shimon forbids for more than her value, due to Tikun ha'Olam!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (2):</span> Indeed, he may not redeem her for more than her value. The Mechaber wrote that he may redeem her for more than her value to teach that up to her value, he is obligated. The Rema says that some permit redeeming her for more, i.e. therefore he is obligated to do so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (4):</span> This opinion obligates redeeming her for more than her value, like the Tur says.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (3):</span> If her value was more than her Kesuvah, and he said 'I divorce her. This is her Kesuvah. Let her redeem herself', we do not heed him. Rather, we force him to redeem her, even if she is worth 10 times her Kesuvah, and even if he has only enough money to redeem her.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (3):</span> Only Shiltei ha'Giborim rules like R. Shimon (and exempts from redeeming her for more than her Kesuvah). Her value is what she could be sold for to be a slave.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> This refers to the first time. If he redeemed her and she was captured again and he wanted to divorce her, he may divorce her and pay her Kesuvah, and she redeems herself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chelkas Mechokek (4):</span> What is the Chidush that he may divorce her and pay her Kesuvah? The Rambam holds that she can demand 'redeem me, or divorce me and pay my Kesuvah.' The Beis Yosef and Rema understood differently.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (4):</span> Also the Drishah and Bach say that the Rambam holds that she can demand this. However, the Rema ruled properly, for Rashi and the Rosh exempt from redeeming her again.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> In any case he need not redeem her a second time.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</span> It seems that if he does not want to divorce her, he need not pay her Kesuvah to redeem herself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (2):</span> Here, the Tur brings two opinions about whether he may redeem her for more than her value. In YD 252, he wrote Stam that Ishto k'Gufo, and he may! It seems that the Tur holds that they argue only about whether he is obligated, but al permit redeeming her for any amount. There is no concern for incting captors, nor for impoverishing the Tzibur, for she is like his body.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (YD 252:4):</span> We do not redeem captives for more than their value. This is for Tikun ha'Olam, lest the enemy exert excessively to capture people. One may redeem himself for as much as he wants.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Regarding whether one's wife is like himself, see Tur EH 78. (He says that some, including the Rosh, obligate to redeem one's wife even for more than her value, but the Rif and Rambam do not obligate for more than her value.)</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) COMPARING A 'KORBAN MINCHAH' WITH A 'KORBAN CHATAS'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah says that the procedure of offering a Chatas ha'Of is performed at the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara derives this from the verse written with regard to a Korban Minchah (brought by a destitute person for his Oleh v'Yored), 'He shall not place oil upon it, and he shall not place frankincense upon it, because it is a Chatas' (Vayikra 5:11). The Gemara derives from here that a Minchah is called a Chatas, and a Chatas is called a Minchah, teaching that their laws are comparable in certain respects. The Gemara says, according to the Girsa in our texts, that just as a Chatas must be slaughtered in the northern half of the Azarah, so must a Minchah be prepared in the north. Similarly, just as a Minchah is offered on the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach, so is a Chatas offered on the southwest corner.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Mah) writes that the text of the first comparison, between a Chatas and a Minchah, is an error. Neither a Chatas ha'Of nor a Minchah are performed in the north. The Minchah to which the Gemara here refers cannot be the specific offering of a Minchas Chotei, which is an exception and is offered in the north, because the Mishnah which says that a Minchah may be offered anywhere in the Azarah does not list this as an exception. Moreover, how can it be that the Minchah -- which is offered instead of a Chatas ha'Of -- must be offered in the north of the Azarah if the Chatas ha'Of itself never needs to be prepared in the north of the Azarah?
</p><p>
What, then, does the Gemara mean when it compares a Chatas to a Minchah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> writes that the text of the Gemara must be emended to read, 'Just as a Chatas is Pasul if it is offered with the intention that it is a different type of Korban, a Minchah (a Minchas Chotei) is Pasul if it is offered with the intention that it is a different type [of Minchah].' This teaching is mentioned in Menachos (4a, see Rashi there).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah Chatas) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. One of Tosfos' questions is based on the conclusion of the Gemara in Menachos (4a). The Gemara there says that the law that a Minchas Chotei is Pasul when offered with the wrong intention is derived from the word 'Hi' in the phrase, 'Ki Chatas Hi' (which teaches that a Chatas is Pasul when offered with the wrong intention), and the same word is stated with regard to a Minchas Chotei. The fact that the Gemara there does not give the explanation that the Gemara here gives according to Rashi's correction in the Girsa indicates that the Girsa that Rashi suggests is <i>not</i> the text of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos (DH Mah Chatas) quotes <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> who explains that the Gemara should read, 'Just as a Chatas ha'Of must be offered next to the Yesod, as the verse says, 'And the remainder of the blood shall be pressed out towards the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach' (Vayikra 5:9), so, too, a Minchah requires Hagashah opposite the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach.' He learns that this teaching is implied by a different Gemara in Menachos (61a). According to Rabeinu Chaim, this teaching applies to all types of Minchah offerings and not just to a Minchas Chotei. Tosfos asks, what is the source that this applies to all types of Minchah offerings, if the verse is stated only with regard to a Minchas Chotei? Rabeinu Chaim answers that the words 'Lifnei Hash-m' are stated with regard to both a Minchas Chotei and other Menachos. This teaches that all Menachos, by definition, have similar characteristics (and not that there is a Gezeirah Shavah which requires a Mesorah, and which teaches a new law).
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who gives a different explanation. According to Rabeinu Tam, the correct text should read, 'Just as a Chatas must be done with the right hand, so, too, a Minchah must be done [with the right hand].' According to this explanation, the Gemara here disagrees with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (25a), who says that the burning (Haktarah) of the Kometz must be done with the right hand if the Kohen is using his hand (as opposed to when the Haktarah is done with a vessel, in which case it may be done with the left hand). Alternatively, Rabeinu Tam says that Rebbi Shimon's position does not necessarily conflict with this statement. It could be that this is the source for Rebbi Shimon's teaching that the burning of the Kometz must be done with the right hand (in case one chooses to do the burning by hand and not with a vessel).
</p><p>
The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> has difficulty with Rabeinu Tam's approach. The Gemara earlier (25a) concludes that Rebbi Shimon uses a Gezeirah Shavah of 'Yad' to teach that a Minchas Chotei must be offered with the right hand. As mentioned above, the verse cited by the Gemara specifically deals with a Minchas Chotei, and, according to Rabeinu Tam, it is the <i>source</i> that a Minchas Chotei must be done with the right hand. Why, then, does Rebbi Shimon need the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Yad'?
</p><p>
The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> answers this question based on the Gemara in Menachos (72a-73a). The Gemara there discusses the opinion of Rebbi Shimon that a Minchas Chotei of a Kohen differs from that of a Yisrael. Unlike the Minchas Chotei of a Yisrael, the Kometz <i>and the leftovers</i> of a Minchas Chotei of a Kohen are burned. Therefore, Rebbi Shimon requires two separate teachings, both the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Yad' and the comparison to Chatas to teach that both the Minchas Chotei of a Yisrael and a Kohen must be done with the right hand. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) WHERE MUST THE 'HAZA'AS HA'DAM' OF A 'CHATAS HA'OF' BE PERFORMED?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara earlier (63b) quotes a Beraisa which discusses the exact locations where various Avodos for the Chatas ha'Of must be performed. With regard to the Haza'as ha'Dam, the Beraisa first states that it may be performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach, and then it states that it must be performed below the Chut ha'Sikra. The Gemara reconciles these two conflicting statements by explaining that the first statement of the Beraisa refers to the act of Mitzuy (pressing the blood from the body of the bird onto the Mizbe'ach after the Haza'ah), which may be performed anywhere on the Mizbe'ach. The second statement refers to the Haza'ah. The Beraisa is teaching that even if the Mitzuy is not done, the Chatas ha'Of remains valid as long as the <i>Haza'ah</i> is done below the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
Does the Gemara mean that <i>all</i> of the Dam must be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra in order for the Korban to be valid, or does it mean that even if some of the Dam was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban is valid as long as some of the Dam was sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra?
</p><p>
(a) According to <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mai Ka'amar), the Gemara is not saying that the Beraisa means that the Korban remains valid as long as <i>some</i> of the Dam is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra. If the Korban would be valid in such a case, then the Gemara should answer the contradiction in the Beraisa by saying simply that the Beraisa means that when some of the Dam is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (the Beraisa's first statement), the Korban remains valid as long as some of the Dam is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra (the Beraisa's second statement). Rather, the Gemara infers from the wording of the Beraisa that this is not the Beraisa's intention. The Beraisa states, 'Hizah Damah' -- 'he sprinkled <i>its blood</i>,' which implies <i>all</i> of its blood. If the Beraisa's intent is only some of the blood, it would say, 'Hizah <i>mi'Damah</i>' -- 'he sprinkled <i>from</i> its blood.' The Beraisa must refer to Haza'ah of <i>all</i> of the blood above the Chut ha'Sikra, and not just some of the blood, and thus the first statement contradicts the second statement. It must be, as the Gemara explains, that the first statement refers to Mitzuy, while the second statement refers to Haza'ah, and the Beraisa is saying that the Haza'ah must be done entirely below the Chut ha'Sikra. (This is how the <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 7:9, understands Rashi, as well as the <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> to Rashi DH u'Vilvad, in contrast to the understanding of the <b>KEREN ORAH</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 7:9) maintains that if the sprinkling is done anywhere on the Mizbe'ach, the Korban is valid as long as some of the blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra. The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, who accepts Rashi's explanation above, finds the Rambam's conclusion difficult, because the Gemara excludes the possibility that the Haza'as ha'Dam of a Chatas ha'Of may be done even partially above the Chut ha'Sikra. The Lechem Mishneh suggests that the Rambam must have had a different Girsa in the Gemara.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> suggests that the Rambam disagrees with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara. Rashi says that if the Beraisa maintains that the Korban is valid when some of the blood is sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Beraisa would say, 'Hizah mi'Damah,' and not 'Hizah Damah,' as mentioned above. However, this is not necessarily true. Since the Beraisa immediately qualifies its first statement and says that some blood must be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, this implies that the first statement refers to only <i>some</i> of the blood. What, then, does the Gemara find problematic with the two statements of the Beraisa? The Beraisa is saying simply that if some of the blood was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban remains valid as long as some blood is sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra!
</p><p>
The Mahari Kurkus suggests that the Gemara's difficulty with the Beraisa is that the qualifying statement -- that some blood must be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra -- is said only <i>after</i> the Beraisa says that the lack of Mitzuy does not disqualify the Korban. If the Beraisa is giving a qualifying statement about Haza'ah, then it should make this statement immediately, before it discusses the new subject of Mitzuy! What, then, is the Beraisa teaching? The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is teaching a different Halachah, but it still is true that performing part of the Haza'as ha'Dam on the upper part of the Mizbe'ach will not disqualify the Korban. (See Mahari Kurkus for other possible explanations).
</p><p>
The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> says that the question on the Rambam is not really a question at all. The Rambam might agree with Rashi's reason for not interpreting the Beraisa to be teaching that one is permitted to sprinkle the blood above and then below the Chut ha'Sikra (i.e., that it does not say 'Hizah <i>mi'Damah</i>'). However, this does not mean that one is prohibited from sprinkling the blood above the Chut ha'Sikra. Rather, the Gemara's inference from the wording of the Beraisa teaches merely that the Beraisa is not discussing the subject of Haza'ah above the Chut ha'Sikra at all. The Rambam understands (unlike Rashi) that the Beraisa does not actually maintain that if one sprinkles some of the blood above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban becomes Pasul. Accordingly, he understands that the intent of the Gemara, after explaining the meaning of the Beraisa, does not contradict the Halachah that one who sprinkles some blood above the Chut ha'Sikra may sprinkle blood below the Chut ha'Sikra, making the Korban valid. (See <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> and <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> for additional answers). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WINE THAT IS SMOKED OR HAS RE'ACH RA <span class='indexentry'>[Kidush: wine]</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> On the southwest corner of the Mizbe'ach above, we do Nesachim of wine and water...</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	64b (Mishnah):</span> Anyone who ascends the Mizbe'ach circles around... (except for these...)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> He does not circle around for these lest the Nesachim absorb the smoke.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 86b (Mishnah):</span> We do not bring for Nesachim wine that is sweet, smoked or cooked. If it was brought, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Basra 20b (Beraisa):</span> One may set up a bakery under another's storehouse of wine, because this improves the wine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yosef):</span> Even smoke of a candle harms wine of Bavel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	95b (Beraisa):</span> One blesses sheha'Kol on wine she'Hikrim (became slimy).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	97a (Rav):</span> One must say Kidush on wine Kosher for Nesachim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> He excludes wine from the top or bottom of the barrel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> R. Chiya taught that one should not bring such wine for Nesachim, but if he did, it is Kosher! (Therefore, it is l'Chatchilah for Kidush.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	Rather, he excludes wine with Re'ach Ra (a bad smell).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 66b:</span> Abaye holds that if wine received the smell of the vinegar, even if it tastes like wine, it is considered vinegar.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	Rava holds that it is considered wine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 17a (Rav Ashi):</span> If one draped a vine over a fig tree, wine from its grapes is Pasul for Nesachim. It says 'Zevach u'Nesachim' - just like the Zevach must be unchanged, also the Nesachim. Draping a vine over a fig tree changes the smell of the wine.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span>	The Rif (Pesachim 22b) brings the Gemara in Bava Basra.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Ein):</span> We disqualify (for Kidush) wine Pasul for Nesachim due to its inferiority. This rule does not exclude cooked or smoked wine, for cooking improves wine, just like smoking it improves it (20b)! They are Pasul for Nesachim because they changed. They are Kosher for Kidush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Aval):</span> One may say Kidush only on wine Kosher for Nesachim, since one can say Kidush on bread. One cannot say Havdalah and Birkas ha'Mazon on bread, therefore Chemar Medinah (an esteemed beverage that people drink in this locale in place of wine) suffices for Havdalah, and for Birkas ha'Mazon if one fixed his meal on that drink.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 29:14):</span> 'Wine Kosher for Nesachim' excludes only wine that smells bad, was exposed or was cooked. One may not say Kidush on them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 7:11):</span> Anyone who ascends the Mizbe'ach circles around, except for one bringing Nesachim of wine or water, lest it become smoked.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> If the wine become smoked, it is Pasul, like it says in Menachos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (64b DH Yis'ashnu):</span> When he goes around, the wine gets smoked from the smoke of the Ma'arachah, and we hold that smoked wine is Pasul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Perush ha'Mishnayos (Menachos 8:5-6):</span> Smoked wine is wine that was put in a Keli with a bad smell. The wine has vapors, and it is called sxd.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (86b DH Me'ushan):</span> When the grapes are bitter, they smoke them, in order to sweeten them, or they cook them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos Yom Tov (Menachos 8:6):</span> Kaf Nachas says that they smoke the wooden barrels with sulfur when they are new. The wine gets a better scent and taste. However, it is known that this is harmful to drink. Therefore, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Bava Basra 6:10):</span> One must say Kidush on wine Kosher for Nesachim. In Menachos we disqualify cooked wine b'Di'eved for Menachos, but here we conclude that 'Kidush wine must be Kosher for Nesachim' disqualifies only wine with a bad smell, that was exposed or changed for the worse. Cooked wine is Pasul for Menachos because it changed from its initial state, just like wine from a vine that grew over a fig tree (Bechoros 17a).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Bava Basra 20b DH b'Yayin):</span> We permit a bakery under a storehouse of wine, for smoke does not harm wine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Bava Basra 18a DH Lo):</span> Rashi says that we forbid a bakery under a storehouse (not of wine), for the smoke harms what is stored. R. Tam challenged this, for we permit a bakery under a storehouse of wine, for it improves it. Surely smoke harms wine. Smoked wine is Pasul for Nesachim! Rather, the plastered ceiling prevents the smoke from entering the storehouse. The heat of the bakery harms what is stored, but benefits wine. Below, the text should say 'Rav Yosef says that even *heat* (not smoke) of a candle harms wine of Bavel.'</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 204:3):</span> If it smells like vinegar and tastes like wine, we bless on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Yayin):</span> If it smells like wine and tastes like vinegar, we bless sheha'Kol. The Tur explains that this is 'wine she'Hikrim.' If it smells like vinegar and tastes like wine, Abaye and Rava argue about this. The Halachah follows Rava; it is wine, and we bless on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (4):</span> If people refrain from drinking it due to its sourness, we do not say on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen (Rema - rather, sheha'Kol).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kasuv):</span> Shibolei ha'Leket (145) says that we are not proficient to know what is considered vinegar to permit if a Nochri touched it, but regarding Berachah, if people refrain from drinking it due to its sourness, it is called vinegar and we do not say on it Borei Peri ha'Gafen.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (272:1):</span> One may not say Kidush on wine with a bad smell, even if it has the smell and taste of wine.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Bi'ur):</span> 'Its smell is bad' means that it spoiled a little, but it did not sour. It smells and tastes like wine, and we bless Borei Peri ha'Gafen on it. Even so, we do not say Kidush on it, for it is a little spoiled.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> We do not say Kidush on wine that smells like wine and tastes like vinegar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (3):</span> This is obvious! We do not even say Borei Peri ha'Gafen on such wine! This is 'wine she'Hikrim' (204:3, Bava Basra 95) according to Rav Chisda, and we bless sheha'Kol on it. This is unlike the Bach, who says that we bless Borei Peri ha'Gafen as long as it was not slimy. If it smells like vinegar, this is worse than being slimy! However, it seems that whenever it smells like vinegar, it is slimy.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (DH v'Ein):</span> We hold that it depends on taste. However, Tosfos (96a DH ha'Bodek) says that it cannot smell like wine and taste like vinegar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> One may not be Mekadesh on such wine, even if he has no other wine. Even b'Di'eved, it seems that he was not Yotzei.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Ein):</span> The Birkei Yosef says that the Ramban says that b'Di'eved he was not Yotzei. He suggests that the Ritva, who says that red wine is merely l'Chatchilah, would be Machshir also wine with Re'ach Ra b'Di'eved. However, even he said that these are different! It is not clear why it should be Pasul b'Di'eved due to 'Hakrivehu Na l'Fechasecha...' (if you would give such a gift to your governor, would he accept it and be pleased)?! Hakrivehu Na applies to a weak animal offered for a Korban, but the Korban is Kosher! The same applies to Kidush! The Gemara said that what is Kosher b'Di'eved for Nesachim is Kosher l'Chatchilah for Kidush. It seems that this is only when it is Pasul for other reasons. Then, Kidush is less stringent than Nesachim. When l'Chatchilah it is Pasul for Nesachim due to Hakrivehu Na, presumably l'Chatchilah we are stringent also about Kidush. B'Di'eved it is Kosher for Nesachim, and all the more so for Kidush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Nishmas Chaim (R. Chaim Berlin) 87:</span> The Isur of 'Hakrivehu Na' is mid'Oraisa. Rashi (Zevachim 68b DH she'Nismeis) says that this disqualifies birds, so they are Neveilos. We are Mechalel Shabbos in order to offer a nicer animal due to 'Hakrivehu Na' (Menachos 64a).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Toras Chaim (R. Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld) 20:</span> The Isur of 'Hakrivehu Na' is mid'Oraisa. It is not merely from Nevi'im. The Gemara often says 'we do not need a verse. This is logical!'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (5):</span> Since Kidush on wine is mid'Rabanan, if one was Mekadesh on wine with Re'ach Ra, we can say that he was Yotzei and he need not repeat Kidush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva Eiger (1):</span> The Ramban says that one may say Havdalah over white wine, even though he disqualifies it for Kidush, for it is no worse than beer. If so, one may use it for the morning Kidush. The same applies to all the Pesulim in this Siman.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'ar Efrayim (18):</span> If wine is slightly spoiled due to the barrels, we learn from Bava Basra, which explicitly disqualifies wine with Re'ach Ra for Kidush. The Rashbam explains that it was put it dirty barrels. For Havdalah or morning Kidush, it seems that it is Kosher. We say Havdalah on Chemar Medinah, even though we may not say Kidush ha'Yom (the night Kidush) on it. However, perhaps this is because one may say Kidush ha'Yom on bread, but there is no difference between wines Kosher for Kidush or Havdalah. The Ran disqualifies Chemar Medinah for Kidush only because one can say Kidush on bread. If so, wine with Re'ach Ra is Kosher for Havdalah, for it is no worse than Chemar Medinah. However, the Beis Yosef brought an opinion that permits Kidush on beer even though it could be said on bread, and even so wine with Re'ach Ra is Pasul. This shows that beer is better than wine with Re'ach Ra, so also for Havdalah wine with Re'ach Ra is Pasul. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (1):</span> I say that the Pesulim are Pasul also for Havdalah, due to 'Hakrivehu Na...' I found that the Birkei Yosef says so. Likewise, one may not say Kidush on bad smelling beer.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Al):</span> Also Sha'ar Efrayim suggested like R. Akiva Eiger. I disagree. White wine is Kosher for Havdalah, even though it is not called wine, for it is no worse than Chemar Medinah, like the Gra says. Here, the problem is Hakrivehu Na. There is no reason to distinguish Kidush from Havdalah or the morning Kidush!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (8):</span> Beis Yehudah says that we do not distinguish Havdalah from Kidush regarding this. This is not only like the Rambam, who holds that Havdalah is mid'Oraisa. Even those who say that it is mid'Rabanan hold that Chachamim enacted like mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> The wine smells bad because it was in a foul Keli. We bless Borei Peri ha'Gafen on it. It is Pasul due to 'Hakrivehu Na...'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xiv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH she'Reicho):</span> I did not see Poskim discuss wine that did not spoil, just it absorbed a different smell from the Keli. Perhaps Menachos 86b proves that one must be stringent. Perush ha'Mishnayos says that this is smoked wine. (Tosfos Yom Tov cites Perush ha'Mishnayos to say that the Keli had a *bad* smell), but the primary text of the Rambam says only that it had a smell. In Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach (6:1), he lists smoked wine separately from wine with Re'ach Ra.) Since it changed detrimentally, it is Pasul also for Kidush. However, if we explain smoked wine simply, like Rashi, Tosfos and the Ran, there is no proof. Perhaps 'Hakrivehu Na...' applies also to this. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (4):</span> If one mixed wine with Re'ach Ra with good wine and the mixture has no Re'ach Ra, one may say Kidush on it.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFICULTY OF THE AVODAH OF 'MELIKAH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara describes the process of Melikah, the slaughtering of the bird-offering by hand. The Beraisa concludes that this is the most difficult Avodah to perform in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara asks that there are other Avodos which are more difficult, such as the Avodos of Kemitzah and Chafinah (see Yoma 47b and 49b). The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not mean that Melikah is the most difficult Avodah, but rather that it is <i>among</i> the most difficult Avodos in the Beis ha'Mikdash (see <b>RASHI</b>, DH Avodah Kashah).
</p><p>
The Gemara does not explain exactly what is so difficult about Melikah that makes it deserving of the title of the most difficult Avodah, or one of the most difficult Avodos, in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why is it so difficult?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#14) explains why Melikah is so difficult to perform. The Gemara says that the neck of the bird must be stretched out, with the other fingers, on the back of the thumb, and then the Kohen must perform the actual Melikah with the <i>same</i> thumb on which the neck is stretched out. This is because Melikah is an Avodah and, like all other Avodos, it must be done with the right hand. Even holding the bird steady must be done solely with the right hand, as well as the act of Melikah itself. This indeed is extremely difficult. The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (2:28) also follows this approach.
</p><p>
(b) However, not all Rishonim agree with the Shitah Mekubetzes. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos), the <b>BARTENURA</b>, and others maintain that the Kohen is permitted to hold the bird in his left hand while he does the act of Melikah with the thumb of his right hand. According to these Rishonim, what makes the Melikah so difficult?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Yoma (49b, DH v'Ha Ika) explains that the words, 'Avodah Kasheh sheb'Mikdash,' do not mean that the act is so difficult that it requires a great degree of skill. Rather, these words mean that it is <i>painful</i> for the Kohen to perform these Avodos. Explaining how this applies to Melikah, Tosfos says that the Kohen experiences considerable pain when his thumbnail cuts through the Mafrekes of the bird. (See <b>SHALOM RAV</b>, quoting the <b>SHE'EILOS U'TESHUVOS MEIR NESIVIM</b> (ch. 12), who adds that according to this explanation, Melikah indeed is the most 'difficult' (i.e. painful) of the Avodos to perform.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) HAVING A WRONGFUL THOUGHT FOR AN 'OLAS HA'OF' AND A 'CHATAS HA'OF'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah lists a number of cases in which a Kohen has a wrongful thought of Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo during the Avodah of a bird offering. In one of the Mishnah's cases, the Kohen has in mind to eat half of a k'Zayis of the bird offering Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo, and he also has in mind to burn half of a k'Zayis of the bird offering Chutz l'Zemano or Chutz l'Mekomo. In such a case, the Korban remains valid, because a thought of eating and a thought of burning do not combine, and thus the minimum amount (a k'Zayis) needed to disqualify the Korban through a wrongful thought has not been achieved.
</p><p>
The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> and others ask that this teaching of the Mishnah seems unnecessary. Even if the two thoughts could combine, the thoughts still would not disqualify the Korban. The Mishnah earlier (29b, 35a) states that only a thought to eat, Chutz l'Zemano, a part of the Korban which is supposed to be eaten, or a thought to burn, Chutz l'Zemano, a part of the Korban which is normally burned, can disqualify the Korban. A thought to burn part of a Korban that is supposed to be eaten does <i>not</i> disqualify the Korban. An Olas ha'Of is completely burned on the Mizbe'ach, and none of it is eaten, while a Chatas ha'Of is completely eaten by the Kohanim, and none of it is burned! Hence, having a thought to <i>eat</i> any amount of an Olas ha'Of, or to <i>burn</i> any amount of a Chatas ha'Of, cannot disqualify the Korban. Why, then, does the Mishnah discuss this case of having a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis of a bird offering?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b>, <b>RASHASH</b> (31b), <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 13:1) and others write that the Mishnah is listing cases of bird offerings which correspond to the cases of animal offerings that it lists earlier (end of the second Perek). Although this case does not actually apply to a bird offering (as mentioned above), the Mishnah mentions it here in order to parallel the earlier Mishnah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> answers that the Mishnah here is teaching a novel idea according to Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer (28a) argues with the principle mentioned above; he maintains that a thought to eat a part of the Korban that is supposed to be burned, or a thought to burn a part that is supposed to be eaten, <i>does</i> disqualify the Korban. The Mishnah is teaching that even according to Rebbi Eliezer, a bird does not become Pasul when one has a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and to burn half of a k'Zayis, because thoughts of eating and burning do not combine.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> answers based on the Gemara earlier (31a). The Gemara there teaches that when the fire of the Mizbe'ach consumes the Korban, this is called 'eating.' Why, then, does a thought of eating half of a k'Zayis and a thought of burning half of a k'Zayis not combine? The Gemara there answers that they <i>would</i> combine if the Kohen specifically has in mind a thought of eating and a thought of the 'eating of fire' (while the Mishnah there (29b, 35a) is referring to thoughts of eating and 'burning'). However, a thought of 'burning' does not combine with a thought of 'eating' -- even with a thought of the 'eating of fire.'
</p><p>
The Sefas Emes explains that when the Mishnah here mentions thoughts of eating and burning with regard to the bird offering, it refers specifically to the type of eating that is done with an Olas ha'Of -- the fire's consumption of the bird. However, since the Kohen has a thought of 'burning,' it does not combine with the thought of the 'eating of fire.'
</p><p>
(d) The Sefas Emes proposes another answer to this question. It is possible that when the Mishnah mentions that the Kohen has a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis and a thought to burn half of a k'Zayis, it means a thought to eat half of a k'Zayis of a <i>Chatas ha'Of</i> and a thought to burn half of a k'Zayis of an <i>Olas ha'Of.</i> The Mishnah is teaching that the thoughts do not combine.
</p><p>
Why, though, would one have thought that such thoughts could combine? Why should this Korban become disqualified because of a thought that the Kohen has about an entirely different Korban?
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> explains the answer of the Sefas Emes based on the words of the <b>IBN EZRA</b> (Vayikra 5:7). In the Parshah of the Korban Oleh v'Yored, the Torah requires that one who is unable to bring a Chatas Behemah, an animal offering, must bring instead a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas ha'Of. Why must he bring an Olas ha'Of as well? The Ibn Ezra explains that since none of the limbs of the Chatas ha'Of are burned on the Mizbe'ach (since the Kohanim eat all of it), an Olas ha'Of must be brought in order for there to be some part of the Korban burned on the Mizbe'ach to take the place of the limbs of the Chatas Behemah. (See also <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b>.)
</p><p>
In the case of a Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of being offered in place of a Chatas Behemah, both bird offerings perform the function of a single Korban. Therefore, it indeed is logical to assume that thoughts about each one would combine to disqualify them! (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> HOW MELIKAH IS DONE <span class='indexentry'>[Melikah]</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> Perhaps Melikah is from the (front of the) neck!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> It says 'u'Malak', like it says about Chatas ha'Of. Just like there it is Mul the Oref, also here.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> We should say that just like he is not Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of, also in Olas ha'Of!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> 'U'Malak...v'Hiktir' - just like the head and body are separate during Haktarah, they are separate due to Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	65b (Beraisa):</span> In Melikah of a Chatas, one cuts the spine and neckbone without cutting most of the flesh. When he reaches the foodpipe or windpipe, he cuts one of these Simanim or its majority, and most of the flesh with it;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	In an Olah, he cuts both Simanim or the majority of both.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If he was Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon):</span> I heard that the Kohen is Mavdil in Melikah of Chatas ha'Of.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Abaye):</span> They argue about whether cutting the majority of the flesh in Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev. Our Tana says that it is not Me'akev. Therefore, Havdalah (without pausing in between) is like Olas ha'Of. R. Elazar says that it is Me'akev. Since he must pause in between the Simanim to cut the flesh, it is unlike Olas ha'Of.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	They argue about whether it is Me'akev, but all agree that l'Chatchilah one must cut the majority of the flesh in Chatas ha'Of!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 19b (Benei R. Chiya):</span> One is Machazir the Simanim (moves them behind the spine) and does Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #1:</span> They mean that also such a Melikah is Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #2:</span> They mean that only such a Melikah is Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (for Version #1 - Mishnah):</span> Shechitah from the Oref is invalid. Melikah from the Oref is Kosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If Melikah requires Chazaras Simanim, such a Shechitah is Kosher also from the Oref! Rather, Melikah is Kosher either way. The Mishnah discusses when he did not move them. (Therefore, Shechitah from the Oref is invalid.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	20a - Question (R. Yanai - Mishnah):</span> Anything Kosher for Shechitah is invalid for Melikah. Anything Kosher for Melikah is invalid for Shechitah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> This teaches about Chazaras Simanim. (It is Kosher for Shechitah, and hence invalid for Melikah.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Yirmeyah):</span> No, it excludes Molich u'Mevi (moving the knife or fingernail away and returning it), which is Kosher for Shechitah but invalid for Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This is like the opinion that Molich u'Mevi is invalid for Melikah. According to the opinion that it is Kosher for Melikah, what does the Mishnah teach?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Benei R. Chiya must hold that Molich u'Mevi is invalid for Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Kahana):</span> The Mitzvah of Melikah is to (press the fingernail and) cut straight down into the neck. This is the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion (R. Avin):</span> Only this is Kosher, but not Molich u'Mevi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (R. Yirmeyah):</span> If this is Kosher, all the more so, Molich u'Mevi is Kosher!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	Rather, '*this* is the Mitzvah' means that *even* this (cutting through pressing) is the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	20b (Ze'iri):</span> If the neckbone and most of the flesh were cut, the animal is a Neveilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Chisda):</span> A Mishnah already teaches this!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If Melikah was done with a knife, one who eats the bird (and the clothes he is wearing when he swallows) become Tamei (the bird is a Neveilah).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	If cutting the neckbone and most of the flesh would not make it a Neveilah, only a Treifah, Melikah with a knife would be like slaughtering a Treifah (since the Simanim are cut after the neckbone and most of the flesh). This cannot be, for a slaughtered Treifah is not Neveilah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Melikah done with a knife makes a Neveilah, for it is not at all like Shechitah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why is it unlike Shechitah?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>24.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</span> It is Chaladah (the knife is covered, or the Simanim are cut in the wrong direction).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>25.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> It is Drasah (pressing, and not by Molich u'Mevi).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>26.</span>	Rav Huna did not answer like Rava, for he holds that Molich u'Mevi is valid for Melikah.</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 6:6):</span> In Chatas ha'Of, he does not separate the head from the body. If he did it is Pasul, and he is lashed.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin 1:42 DH Melikas):</span> Semag (Lav 327) says that the Rambam holds that the Lav is to separate the head from the body. He supports this from Zevachim, which learns Melikas Olas ha'Of from Chatas ha'Of. It thought to learn that just like he is not Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of, also in Olas ha'Of; a verse refuted this. This is difficult. In Chulin (20b), we say that (cutting the majority of) the skin does not apply to Melikah. Also, Chachamim and R. Elazar (b'Rebbi Shimon) argue about whether one must cut the entire Simanim, or just the majority (21b). Chachamim learn only that the entire Simanim must be cut, but not that one must separate the head from the body. We learn from R. Elazar that even if it is connected through flesh, it is not considered connected; this is not Me'akev Havdalah. Rashi explains that whatever he cuts more than needed (for Melikah) is Havdalah. This does not include fully cutting a Siman, for l'Chatchilah the entire Siman should be cut. Also Tosfos holds that Lo Yavdil applies to the second Siman, but not to flesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (23):</span> To do Melikah, he cuts with his fingernail and descends opposite the Oref. He may be Molich u'Mevi, or press down. We are not concerned if the Simanim are uprooted. He cuts the spine and neckbone without most of the flesh. If he cut most of the flesh, it is as if it died before he reached the Simanim. He must cut both Simanim in an Olah when descending. Melikah with a knife or from the side is not Melikah. It is like choking the bird or Nechirah (tearing the Simanim). The entire Oref is Kosher for Melikah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span>  R. Avin thought that going Molich u'Mevi is Pasul for Melikah. R. Yirmeyah taught that all the more so, Molich u'Mevi is Kosher. Also, Rava and Rav Huna argued about this, and Rav Huna is Machshir. Therefore, we are Machshir. Oref is opposite the face. Mul Oref is opposite the neck. It sees (is in line with) what is opposite the face.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam rules like Rav Huna, for R. Avin and R. Yirmeyah hold like him.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yam Shel Shlomo (DH Amru):</span> We should rule like Rava against Rav Huna, for he is Basra (lived later)! Perhaps the Rambam rules like Rav Huna because we concluded 'Bnei R. Chiya hold that Molich u'Mevi is Pasul', which connotes that this is not the Halachah. R. Avin thought to say like Rava, but R. Yirmeyah corrected him, for whatever the Torah did not explicitly say cannot be like Shechitah, it is better to do Melikah like Shechitah. Also, the text should not say 'Rava'. We do not find that he argued with Rav Huna. Rather, it should say 'Rabah'. Rashi (20a DH ha'Nicha) says that Rabah argues with Rav Huna. Since Molich u'Mevi is Pasul, the Halachah does not follow Bnei R. Chiya. The Mizrachi erred.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span>	Note - Tosfos (Menachos 36a DH Amar) proved that Rava never saw Rav Huna, for Rav Huna died before Rav Yehudah, and Rava was born when Rav Yehudah died. The Chasam Sofer (Sukah 42a (16)) questioned this proof, for Tosfos (Chulin 13a) proved there were two Chachamim named Rav Huna.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Chulin 20a DH Kotzetz):</span> Rav Kahana teaches that he cuts without Molich u'Mevi. He does not exclude Molich u'Mevi, for all the more so it is Kosher! The Torah explicitly excluded a knife and the neck. Whatever it did not explicitly exclude, it is better to do Melikah like Shechitah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Vayikra 1:15 DH ha'Kohen):</span> He uses his fingernail to cut Mul the Oref. He cuts the neckbone until he reaches the Simanim, and cuts them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mizrachi (on Rashi):</span> Cutting the neckbone immediately makes it a Neveilah! This is like Zeiri taught. If so, it is already dead before he cuts the Simanim! We would not ask this if it only made a Tereifah, for this is the Mitzvah (to make it a Tereifah, and finish the Melikah without pausing), just like an animal is Tereifah from the beginning of Shechitah, once the foodpipe is pierced. The Gemara answered that he cuts the neckbone without the majority of the flesh. When we say that he cuts the neckbone until he reaches the Simanim, this does not exclude Chazaras Simanim. R. Yanai said that it excludes this, but Rabah bar bar Chanah rejected this and said that it excludes Molich u'Mevi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Lechem Mishneh:</span> The Mizrachi explained that pressing is Kosher, and all the more so Molich u'Mevi. How can he permit Chazarah? The Gemara said that the one who permits Molich u'Mevi cannot permit Chazaras Simanim!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Chasam Sofer Chulin 19a DH u'Mistabra):</span> Tosfos asked why we say only *presumably* the version that he *may* be Machazir is correct. The opinion that he must do so was refuted! He answered that all agree that in either case it is Kosher; they argue about what is the ideal Mitzvah. If so, what is the support? Perhaps one must be Machazir (l'Chatchilah), but b'Di'eved it is Kosher without this, and the Mishnah teaches the following difference. In Shechitah, even if he was Machazir, it is Pasul unless he knows that he cut the Simanim before the neckbone. Melikah is Kosher even if he cut the neckbone before the Simanim!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Chasam Sofer):</span> The Gemara relies on the conclusion. Due to R. Yanai's question, we conclude that Bnei R. Chiya must hold that he is not Molich u'Mevi. If so, presumably he *may* be Machazir. The Mishnah cannot discuss one who was Machazir, but he is unsure if he cut the Simanim first. This cannot be if he cuts without Molich u'Mevi! Rather, he may be Machazir. Perhaps this is why R. Yanai said that Bnei R. Chiya were refuted. (He held that they mandate Chazarah.) How can they explain 'what is Kosher for Shechitah is Pasul for Melikah?' They must say that it excludes Molich u'Mevi (it is Pasul for Melikah). If so, presumably he *may* be Machazir, like we said above!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (19b DH u'Meyushav):</span> My answer also defends the Mizrachi. R. Yanai's question was only according to the version that he must be Machazir. There is no question according to the other version.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Lechem Mishneh):</span> In Zevachim, the Gemara connotes that one cuts the majority of the flesh. One opinion holds that it is Me'akev. All agree that it is l'Chatchilah. Why did the Rambam omit this?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Chasam Sofer 21a DH ul'Mai):</span> We hold like R. Shimon ben Elyakim. Tosfos says that the Beraisa above was R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, and not Rabanan. We can say that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds that there is a Mitzvah to cut most of the flesh after the majority of the Siman, but Rabanan say that one should not cut, lest he cut more and transgress 'Lo Yavdil.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Keren Orah 65b DH v'Shitas):</span> The Rambam holds that the Isur to separate Chatas ha'Of, and the Mitzvah to separate Olas ha'Of, is to totally sever the head from the body. There is no distinctwion in Melikah. One may totally cut both Simanim in Chatas. If so, the Isur of Havdalah pertains to most of the flesh. In Chatas one must leave most of the flesh, and in Olah one must cut it. This is why the Rambam did not say that one cuts the majority of the flesh in Chatas ha'Of. The Beraisa that says that one cuts most of the flesh also in Chatas is like the Tana'im who hold that Havdalah applies only to the Simanim, and in Chatas one must cut only one Siman.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) SEVERING BOTH 'SIMANIM' OF A 'CHATAS HA'OF'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (65a) states that if, during the Melikah of the bird being offered as a Chatas ha'Of, one severs both Simanim in the bird's neck, the Korban becomes Pasul. This is based on the verse that says with regard to a Chatas ha'Of, 'v'Lo Yavdil' -- 'and he shall not separate' (Vayikra 5:8). The Gemara says that the Mishnah does not follow the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon who said, 'I have heard that one may sever [the two Simanim of] a Chatas ha'Of [and it remains valid].'
</p><p>
Rav Chisda explains that the dispute is based on a different argument -- whether or not the failure to perform Mitzuy (pressing the blood out against the wall of the Mizbe'ach) renders the Chatas ha'Of invalid. The Tana Kama maintains that failure to perform the Mitzuy disqualifies the Korban. Therefore, one may not sever the Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of, because doing so would constitute performing an act of an Olas ha'Of for a Chatas ha'Of (as will be explained below). Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that the failure to perform Mitzuy does <i>not</i> disqualify the Korban, and, therefore, cutting both Simanim is not considered an act of an Olas ha'Of, but rather merely an act of cutting.
</p><p>
How does this explain the argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon with regard to whether or not one may sever the two Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Tana Kama Savar, and DH v'Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon Savar) explains that the Tana Kama maintains that severing both Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of renders it invalid because the same Avodah which is done for an Olas ha'Of (Melikah with Havdalah, followed by Mitzuy) is being done for the Chatas ha'Of. If the Kohen cuts both Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of, then he must perform Mitzuy right away, because if he waits, all of the blood will flow out of the bird. Thus, the Kohen is performing the same Avodah as he performs for an Olas ha'Of.
</p><p>
Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon agrees that if the Kohen actually performs this sequence of procedures (Melikah with Havdalah, followed by Mitzuy) for a Chatas ha'Of, the Chatas ha'Of becomes Pasul. However, since he maintains that the Korban is valid even if no Mitzuy is done, it is possible for the Chatas ha'Of to remain valid even if Havdalah was done, because the Kohen does not have to do the Mitzuy. Consequently, even when both Simanim are cut the Avodah done for the Chatas ha'Of is <i>not</i> the same as the Avodah done for the Olas ha'Of.
</p><p>
Rashi understands that according to both Tana'im, the verse of 'v'Lo Yavdil' is not a prohibition against cutting both Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of. Rather, it is a prohibition against performing the Avodah of a Chatas ha'Of in the manner of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of. This prohibition is transgressed only by doing both Havdalah <i>and</i> Mitzuy (unlike the simple meaning of the words in the verse). When Rav Chisda says that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that Havdalah is just an act of cutting, he means that Havdalah without Mitzuy will not make the Korban be like an Olas ha'Of, and therefore it is considered merely like cutting.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Rebbi Elazar) argues with Rashi's explanation. Tosfos explains that the prohibition of 'v'Lo Yavdil' is, as the words imply, a prohibition against doing Havdalah alone. How, then, can Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintain that a Chatas ha'Of to which Havdalah is done can remain a valid Korban? Tosfos answers that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is discussing a case in which the Haza'as ha'Dam was done before the Havdalah. Since the necessary Avodos involving the blood of the Chatas ha'Of were already performed, cutting the Simanim at this time no longer renders the Korban invalid. However, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon would agree that if the Havdalah was done before the Haza'as ha'Dam, then the Korban would be Pasul, since its Avodah was done like that of an Olas ha'Of.
</p><p>
The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> and <b>CHAZON ISH</b> understand that Tosfos disagrees not only with Rashi's explanation (that the problem with cutting both Simanim of the Chatas ha'Of is that one thereby does both Havdalah and Mitzuy), but also with Rashi's reasoning. According to Rashi, the verse of 'v'Lo Yavdil' is not a prohibition against cutting both Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of. Rather, it is a prohibition against performing the Avodah of a Chatas ha'Of in the manner of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of. According to Tosfos, the verse specifically prohibits the action of cutting both Simanim of a Chatas ha'Of.
</p><p>
Tosfos maintains that there is only one Tana in the Gemara who understands 'v'Lo Yavdil' differently -- Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim. He understands that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's opinion is that the verse of 'v'Lo Yavdil' does not mean 'and he shall not separate,' but rather it means, 'and he <i>does not need</i> to separate.' According to this interpretation, Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim maintains that even if the Havdalah was done <i>before</i> the Haza'as ha'Dam, the Chatas ha'Of remains valid, because there is no verse which teaches that a Chatas ha'Of must be done without Havdalah.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos later (on 66a) quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who says that even Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim agrees with Tosfos' earlier explanation of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's opinion. He agrees that there is a prohibition against cutting the Simanim before Haza'as ha'Dam. When Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim says that 'v'Lo Yavdil' means 'and he does not need to separate,' he understands that the verse is addressing a situation in which the Kohen does Havdalah after Haza'as ha'Dam and before Mitzuy. One might have thought that a Kohen who is about to press the blood of a Chatas ha'Of onto the Mizbe'ach should definitely sever the Simanim first, since this will cause more blood to be pressed onto the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim learns that, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the verse of 'v'Lo Yavdil' teaches that this is not necessary. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) SPRINKLING THE BLOOD OF A BIRD OFFERING IN THE WRONG PLACE</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if the blood of a Chatas ha'Of was sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra, the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah earlier (26a) discusses various cases of Zerikos of Korbanos that were not performed on the proper part of the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah there states that all of these Korbanos are Pasul.
</p><p>
Shmuel (26b) explains that when the Mishnah says that these Korbanos are Pasul, it means that the meat of these Korbanos may not be eaten. The owner of the Korban, however, still fulfills his obligation. Shmuel is of the opinion that all parts of the Mizbe'ach are considered, b'Di'eved, the proper place for the Zerikos. (See Insights to 26b with regard to whether or not Shmuel means that this leniency applies to all cases listed in the Mishnah.)
</p><p>
The Mishnah here similarly discusses performing the Zerikah of a bird offering on the wrong half of the Mizbe'ach. Does Shmuel's ruling -- that the Korban is valid but may not be eaten -- apply to the case of a bird offering as well?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Ma'alah) says that Shmuel's ruling <i>does</i> apply to a Korban ha'Of. When the Mishnah says that the Zerikah of a Chatas ha'Of done above the Chut ha'Sikra is Pasul, it means that the Korban may not be eaten by Kohanim. The owner of the Korban still fulfills his obligation.
</p><p>
The <b>BEN ARYEH</b> asks that a number of Mishnayos in Kinim (some of which are cited later on 67b) which seem to contradict the view of Tosfos. Those Mishnayos in Kinim deal with the problem of a bird offering which might be an Olas ha'Of and might be a Chatas ha'Of. On a number of occasions, the Mishnayos there rule that because the Zerikah was done in the wrong place, a new Korban must be brought! According to Tosfos, why must the owner bring a new Korban? (See <b>SEFAS EMES</b> to 67b, and <b>NETZIV</b> in <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b>, who also have difficulty with the view of Tosfos.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> suggests that Shmuel's ruling does <i>not</i> apply to a Korban ha'Of. This is because the source from which Shmuel derives his principle (that all of the Mizbe'ach is considered the proper place for Zerikah) is a verse regarding <i>animal</i> offerings, and not bird offerings. Therefore, when the Mishnah says that the Chatas ha'Of is Pasul, it means that it is entirely Pasul, and the owner must bring a new Korban. This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 7:5) who says that this type of Chatas ha'Of is Pasul, and he does not differentiate between the status of the meat and the owner's fulfillment of his obligation. In addition, the <b>CHAFETZ CHAIM</b> in <b>LIKUTEI HALACHOS</b> (26b) points out that the Rambam equates this case with that of a Chatas ha'Of which was offered with intention that it should be an Olas ha'Of, a case in which the Korban certainly becomes Pasul entirely.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> (Tosefta Zevachim, Chidushim 7:3) writes that the position of the Rambam requires more explanation. Why should the entire Mizbe'ach be considered the proper area for any Zerikah in the case of an animal offering, but not in the case of a bird offering?
</p><p>
He explains that, in essence, the Mizbe'ach should be considered a valid area for all Zerikos of both types of Korbanos. However, the Torah specifically separates its description of the laws of an Olas ha'Of from the laws of a Chatas ha'Of. The Gemara in Chulin (21a) teaches that there is a verse ('v'Hikrivu') which differentiates between a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas ha'Of. When one performs the Zerikah of a Chatas ha'Of above the Chut ha'Sikra, the problem is <i>not</i> that he failed to do the Zerikah in the right place, because the entire Mizbe'ach should be considered a valid area, as it is valid for the Zerikah of animal offerings. Rather, the problem is that he is performing the Avodah of the Chatas ha'Of <i>in the manner</i> of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of. Since the Torah states that the Avodah of a Chatas ha'Of cannot be performed in the same manner as that of an Olas ha'Of, it makes sense that the Korban is entirely Pasul and the owner must bring another Korban. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> LIABILITY FOR AN UNCOVERED PIT <span class='indexentry'>[damages: Bor: uncovered]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</span> If we will say that 'Lo Yavdil' means that he need not separate, we should also say (regarding a pit) 'v'Lo Yechasenu' means that he need not cover it!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Ashi):</span> No. Since it says 'Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem', clearly, it is incumbent on him to cover it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Kama 24b (Reish Lakish):</span> If a cow was crouching in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and another cow was walking, and the latter kicked the crouching cow, it is exempt;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> It is liable. The walking cow may walk over the crouching cow, but it may not kick it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	32a - Support (for Reish Lakish - Mishnah):</span> If Shimon was in front carrying a beam, and Reuven was in back carrying a jug,	if Shimon stopped and the jug broke on the beam, he must pay.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	27b (Mishnah):</span> If Reuven left his jug on the road, and Shimon tripped on it and it broke, Shimon is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why is he exempt? He should pay attention to where he walks!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rav, Shmuel and R. Yochanan):</span> The case is, Reuven filled the Reshus ha'Rabim with jugs, or it was dark, or the jug was around a corner, out of his sight.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (R. Aba):</span> He is exempt because normally, people do not pay attention to where they walk.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	Cases occurred, and Shmuel and Rava obligated one who tripped to pay.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Rava holds like Shmuel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (Rav Papa):</span> Perhaps he holds like R. Aba.  The case was, Kelim were left near the corner of the olive-press. It is the custom to leave Kelim there, so one who walks there must watch his step.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	28b (Shmuel):</span> A pit is liable for 'an ox' that fell in, but not for a man. This applies only to death. It is liable for damage to a person.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	52a (Mishnah):</span> If an ox that is (owned by someone) deaf, insane, or young fell in a pit, the owner is paid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	54a (R. Yochanan):</span> It means that the ox is deaf, insane or (very) young.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If the ox was healthy, would the pit's owner be exempt?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah):</span> The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.	 One is liable not only for a healthy ox. Rather, he is liable even for a deaf, insane or young ox. One might have thought that its deficiency caused it to fall, and one is exempt for it. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Acha - Beraisa):</span> If one with Da'as (understanding) fell in, he is exempt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> This refers to a sane ox.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Ravina):</span> No, it refers to a sane person.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Acha):</span> This connotes that one is liable if an insane person falls in. The verse says 'an ox', but not a person!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Ravina):</span> Rather, the Beraisa means that if one of the species of those with Da'as (i.e. a person) fell in, he is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (R. Acha - Beraisa):</span> If an ox with Da'as fell in, he is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (to the initial question - Rava):</span> Indeed, one is liable only for an ox that is deaf, insane or young. If the ox was healthy, the pit's owner is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>24.</span>	This is because the ox should have watched where it is walking.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>25.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support (Beraisa):</span> If an ox was deaf, insane, young, blind or walking at night (and fell in), the pit owner is liable. If a healthy ox fell in during the day, he is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>26.</span><span class='desl2'>	52b:</span> We do not say that since he is liable for a deaf ox, he is liable also for a healthy ox.</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 12a):</span> I hold that people do not normally pay attention to where they walk. I saw some Rabanan explain this in ways that I think are unreasonable, so I did not write them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (DH Ein):</span> People think, therefore they are distracted and they do not pay attention to where they walk.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 12:16):</span> One is liable for an animal that died in his pit or collided with his mound only if the animal was young, deaf, insane, blind, or fell at night. If a healthy animal fell during the day and died he is exempt, for this is like Ohnes, for an animal normally sees and avoids obstacles. Similarly, if a person fell in and died, even if he was blind or fell at night, whether he is free or a slave, the pit's owner is exempt. If a person or healthy animal was injured, the pit's owner pays full damage.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</span> Why should one pay for a healthy animal during the day? Regarding this, what is the difference between death and injury?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Gemara did not explicitly discuss damage to a healthy animal. I say that the Rambam learned from Bava Kama 27b, which says that normally people do not pay attention to where they walk. The Rambam brought this (13:5). He holds that all the more so, an animal, which has no understanding, does not pay attention to where it walks. The Gemara exempted a healthy animal during the day only regarding death, for healthy person animals normally avoid great obstacles with mortal danger. They do not guard themselves from damage, so this is not Ohnes. Perhaps the Ra'avad holds that people think, therefore they do not pay attention to the road, but animals pay attention, so it is like Ohnes. The Rashba explains like this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Tosfos 27b DH Amai):</span> Why did Rava say that the walking cow may walk over the crouching cow? An animal should watch where it walks, like we say about a healthy animal that fell in a pit! This is difficult.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rashba 27b DH Amai):</span> There is no payment for a healthy ox that falls in a pit during the day. This shows that even an animal should pay attention to where it walks! It is the nature of animals to see that they not fall into pits, like people, but they lack intellect to guard themselves from trampling on Kelim and other things in front of them in Reshus ha'Rabim. If you will not say so, why is Regel Mu'ad to trample and break things?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 5:44):</span> A Gezeras ha'Kasuv exempts a pit for people even if they are small and we cannot say that they should have watched where they walk. The Magid Mishneh gave a good reason for the Rambam, but the Ra'avad is primary. The Gemara concludes that people do not pay attention to where they walk. This implies that animals pay attention. The Mishnah is Stam, both for death and damage. We exempt only an ox that is blind... Also the Rashba and Tur in the name of the Ramah argue with the Rambam. The same applies to other obstacles. If an animal tripped on a jug and was hurt, the jug's owner is exempt. If it broke the jug, this is Regel and it is exempt. This is difficult. If it is careful even from minor mishaps, we should say that it intended to break the jug. We exempt Regek because it is normal for the animal! It seems that we distinguish like Tosfos (27b DH Amai), that one should be more careful not to damage others than not to be damaged. This is because man has intrellect to beware of obstacles. We can say oppositely about animals. It looks to avoid being hurt, but it does not look to avoid damaging. Regel is exempt, for an animal will not circle around to avoid breaking Kelim. This answers Tosfos' question.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Minchas Chinuch (53, p. 79:4, or [8] in new edition):</span> Based on the Magid Mishneh's reason, if a healthy ox fell in a pit 10 Tefachim deep and it was damaged, there should be no payment. However, the Rambam connotes that he is liable also in this case.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (CM 410:24):</span> According to the Magid Mishneh, if a healthy ox fell in a deep pit that can kill, and it was damaged, the Rambam agrees that there is no payment.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Even ha'Ezel (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 3:11 DH Al Ken):</span> Even though the Rambam holds that a person who trips is considered Ohnes, regarding an animal it is negligence, for animals pay attention to where they walk. This is unlike the Magid Mishneh, who says that an animal guards itself from mortal damage. The Magid Mishneh is difficult. If it does not pay attention to where it walks, how will it know if the obstacle is dangerous?! Rather, an animal pays attention to where it walks. The Rambam obligates a pit for damage to an animal because even though it sees the pit, it does not guard itself from minor mishaps. In Chulin (51a), we say that an animal would not jump unless it estimated that it can survive the fall.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Merumei Sadeh (Bava Kama 32a DH Aval):</span> The Rambam holds that since a pit is prone to damage from its beginning, it is liable even though the victim should have looked where he or it walks. This is why it is liable for an animal that was damaged; it is exempt only regarding death.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nachalas David (32a DH v'Od):</span> Our Gemara supported Reish Lakish, who discussed animals, from a Mishnah about people. This shows that we do not distinguish them regarding paying attention to where they walk. The only difference is between small and big damage, like the Rambam says.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Bava Kama 3:1):</span> R. Ila'i explained that people do not normally pay attention to where they walk, because a person's eyes are above and he does not always look near his feet.  (Note: in our text, R. Aba told Rav Ashi that R. Ila'i said so. The Rosh's text says that Ravina told Rav Ashi that R. Ila'i said so.) There is no payment for a healthy ox that falls in a pit during the day, for an animal should pay attention to where it walks more than a person does. The Rif rules like R. Ila'i because Ravina and Rav Ashi discuss his teaching. Also, the Gemara suggested that Rava holds like Shmuel, and rejected this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (27b DH Lefi):</span> One is exempt if a healthy ox fell in a pit during the day, because an animal's eyes are below, so it should pay attention (to the road) more than people do.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (ibid.):</span> One must watch where he walks, but one riding need not watch where his animal walks.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (CM 410:19):</span> One is liable for an animal that died in a pit or collided with a mound only if the animal was young, deaf, insane, blind, or fell at night. If a healthy animal fell during the day and died he is exempt, for this is like Ohnes, since an animal normally sees and avoids obstacles.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (20):</span> Similarly, if a person fell in and died, even if he was blind or fell at night, whether he was free or a slave, the pit's owner is exempt. If a person or healthy animal was injured, the pit's owner pays full damage.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (27):</span> Perhaps he learns from Bava Kama 24b (Rava exempts a cow that walks over a crouching cow).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that if a healthy animal fell during the day, he is exempt even for damage.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (23):</span> The Ramah obligates even for a healthy person who fell, even during the day. It seems that he exempts for an animal, for it normally pays attention to the road. This is unlike the Rambam, who obligates full damage. It is like the Ra'avad and Rashba. We hold like them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	SMA (33):</span> An animal's eyes are below, so it normally pays attention to the road and guards itself from damage. A person's eyes see above and further along the road.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (23):</span> A young animal does not yet have a nature to avoid obstacles. If a healthy ox fell during the day, this is like Ohnes. It was decreed from Shamayim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (412:3):</span> Only a person does not pay attention to the road, but an animal's eyes are below, so it normally pays attention to where it walks. Therefore, if it tripped on a jug in Reshus ha'Rabim and it was hurt, the owner is exempt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (6):</span> The Rambam disagrees with this. He obligates the owner of the jug to pay for the damage to the ox.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (66a) says that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered in the manner of an Olas ha'Of is Pasul. The Gemara inquires as to the nature of the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of which makes a Chatas ha'Of Pasul. If the Mishnah means that doing Havdalah (severing both Simanim in the bird's neck) disqualifies a Chatas ha'Of because this act is the Avodah of an Olas ha'Of, then the Mishnah is unlike the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who says that he heard that Havdalah may be done for a Chatas ha'Of and the Korban remains valid (see Insights to 65b). The Gemara says instead that the Avodah of the Olas ha'Of that disqualifies the Chatas ha'Of is the sprinkling of the blood. For the Olas ha'Of, only Mitzuy (pressing the bird against the Mizbe'ach such that its blood oozes out) is done, instead of Haza'ah (sprinkling the blood).
</p><p>
The Gemara avoids setting up the Mishnah in a way which is not in accordance with the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. Does the Gemara indeed maintain that the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos) and <b>BARTENURA</b> apparently maintain that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is the Tana of the Mishnah. This is evident from their answer to a different question on the Mishnah. The Mishnah, in its first case, makes the apparently superfluous statement that when the Zerikas ha'Dam of a Chatas ha'Of is done below the Chut ha'Sikra (in the manner in which it is supposed to be done), with intention that the Korban is a Chatas ha'Of, the Korban is valid. Why does the Mishnah need to express such an obvious Halachah?
</p><p>
The Rambam and Bartenura explain that the Mishnah is advancing a novel thought. The Mishnah is teaching that even if Havdalah, which is prescribed only for an Olas ha'Of, is done for a Chatas ha'Of, the Korban is still valid. This novel thought, however, is true only according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, because the Tana of an earlier Mishnah (64b) expresses that Havdalah disqualifies a Chatas ha'Of.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> asks several questions on this approach. As mentioned above, the Mishnah at the end of the previous Perek explicitly argues with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. Just because the Gemara says that the Mishnah here does not directly conflict with the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does not mean that he is the Tana of the Mishnah! Moreover, when the Gemara says that the Mishnah would not be in accordance with the view of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon if it would be referring to Havdalah, the Gemara itself responds that the earlier Mishnah has already been established as not in accordance with his view, and thus it should not be problematic that the Mishnah here also does not follow his view (as <b>RASHI</b> here explains as well). Rather, the Gemara is trying to find a way to establish the Mishnah according to everyone, <i>even</i> Rebbi Elazar.
</p><p>
However, the Tosfos Yom Tov seems to be left without an answer to the question of the Rambam and Bartenura. If Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon is not the Tana of the Mishnah, then why does the Mishnah bother teaching that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered properly is valid?
</p><p>
(b) The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that <b>TOSFOS</b> (66a, DH Chatas) addresses this point without requiring that Rebbi Elazar be the Tana of the Mishnah. Tosfos writes that when the Mishnah says that a Chatas ha'Of that was offered properly is valid, the Mishnah is simply stating the Mitzvah of how to bring a Chatas ha'Of; it is giving an introduction to the cases that it will describe of <i>incorrect</i> ways of offering a Chatas ha'Of.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDUSHEI MAHARICH</b> (on the Mishnah) follows the Rambam's approach. He says that the Rambam was not satisfied with Tosfos' answer, because if the Mishnah is merely expressing the best way to offer a Chatas ha'Of, then it should not use the past tense. The past tense indicates that it is only b'Di'eved and not the ideal way to offer the Korban. This is why the Rambam learns that the Mishnah's intent is to teach that even though Havdalah was done, the Chatas ha'Of is valid b'Di'eved. In addition, he presents an alternative way of learning the opening statements of the Gemara. Unlike Rashi, he understands that the Gemara does not accept that the Mishnah is not like Rebbi Elazar, because the first case in the Mishnah clearly teaches a novel thought using Rebbi Elazar's approach. This is why the Gemara gives another explanation for the Mishnah, according to which the Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi Elazar.
</p><p>
However, according to the commentary of the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (66a), Tosfos indeed addresses the first point of the Chidushei Maharich. The Shitah Mekubetzes learns that Tosfos is making two different points. The first point of Tosfos is that the Mishnah describes the proper way to offer the Chatas ha'Of. The second point of Tosfos is why the Mishnah uses the past tense, indicating a Halachah that is b'Di'eved. Tosfos answers that since the other cases in the Mishnah deal with improper actions, the first case in the Mishnah follows a similar wording, even though it actually expresses the correct way, l'Chatchilah, to offer a Chatas ha'Of. This way of learning Tosfos clearly refutes the first proof of the Chidushei Maharich. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) HOW CAN AN 'OLAS HA'OF' BECOME A 'CHATAS HA'OF'?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah (66b) discusses an argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua regarding an Olas ha'Of which was offered with the Avodos of a Chatas ha'Of, and with intention that it be a Chatas ha'Of. Rebbi Eliezer says that the bird is subject to the laws of Me'ilah, while Rebbi Yehoshua says that it is not subject to the laws of Me'ilah. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's reasoning is that the bird changes into a Chatas ha'Of through being offered as such, even though it was designated to be an Olas ha'Of. Since a Chatas ha'Of may be eaten by Kohanim, Rebbi Yehoshua applies the rule that anything which may be eaten by Kohanim is not subject to the prohibition of Me'ilah.
</p><p>
This is difficult to understand. The Mishnah in Chulin (41b) states that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily. Rather, it can be offered only when one is obligated to bring a Chatas due to a sin that he committed. How, then, can the person's Olas ha'Of turn into a Korban that he is unable to offer voluntarily? The Mishnah does not specify that this argument applies only in a case in which the person happens to be obligated to bring a Chatas ha'Of and has not yet done so. How can his Olas ha'Of turn into a Chatas ha'Of if he did not commit a sin?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The commentaries deal with a similar question. The law states that a person cannot consecrate an animal as a Korban if it does not belong to him (for example, an animal that he stole, or an animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah). However, there are situations in which an animal that does not belong to the person who declared it consecrated does acquire a certain degree of Kedushah of a Korban. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:7) writes that if one offers a stolen Korban, the Korban is Pasul. The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Nedarim 32:10) infers from the Rambam's words that the animal has the Kedushah of a Korban but is Pasul (and not that it never became a Korban in the first place). How, though, can it become a Korban, if the person who consecrated it did not own it?
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Nega'im 11:5) addresses this question in the case of an animal that is Asur b'Hana'ah. He writes that it is true that the Kedushah of such an offering cannot be achieved through a mere verbal declaration (as other, ordinary animals become consecrated). However, when the Avodah is performed with this animal, the <i>Avodah</i> itself gives the animal the Kedushah of a Korban.
</p><p>
<b>SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b> suggests a similar approach to answer the question on the Mishnah here. It is possible that the rule that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily means that it cannot achieve the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas <i>through being consecrated</i> if the owner has no obligation to bring a Chatas. However, once the Avodah of a Chatas is performed with the bird with the intention that it be a Chatas ha'Of, it acquires the Kedushah of a Chatas ha'Of through the Avodah.
</p><p>
(b) Another answer to this question may be inferred from the words of the <b>MEFARESH</b> in Nedarim (6a, DH Devarav Kayamim). The Gemara in Nedarim quotes a Tosefta which states that if one who is obligated to bring a Chatas points to an animal and says, 'Harei Zo Chatas' -- 'this animal is a Chatas,' the animal is not considered consecrated as a Chatas. Only by saying, 'This is my Chatas,' does the animal acquire the Kedushah of a Chatas. The Mefaresh there comments that if the person would not be obligated to bring a Chatas, then his verbal designation of the animal would not be effective, because he did not say, 'This animal is upon me (Alai) as a Chatas.' This implies that if he did use this phraseology, then the Korban <i>would</i> have Kedushas Chatas. This, however, seems to contradict the aforementioned Mishnah in Chulin (41b) which explicitly states that the problem is not the lack of the word 'Alai,' but rather that a Chatas cannot be brought voluntarily.
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AR HA'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 14:8) answers this question in the name of the <b>MAHARI IRGAS</b>. He explains that when the Mishnah in Chulin says that a Chatas cannot be offered voluntarily, it means that the Korban will be Pasul if it is brought. Nevertheless, it will have the Kedushah of a Korban Chatas if one designates it as such, even though it may not be offered as a Korban.
</p><p>
Based on this interpretation, one may suggest that the Mishnah in Chulin (41b) only limits dedicating the Chatas in order to actually bring the Korban; such a Korban will be Pasul. It does not say that the animal does not attain Kedushah when the owner (who is not obligated to bring a Chatas) designates it as a Chatas (whether through words or through Avodah). (See also <b>TESHUVOS RAMA MI'PANO</b> #26, <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> to Nedarim #7, <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> 28:2.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DOES ME'ILAH APPLY TO PASUL KODSHIM? <span class='indexentry'>[Me'ilah: Kodshim Pesulim]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</span> If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered l'Shem Kodshim Kalim in the south, there is Me'ilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Me'ilah 2a (Mishnah):</span> Me'ilah applies in the following cases: Kodshei Kodashim were slaughtered in the south, or Kabalah was in the south; Shechitah or Zerikah was at night; they were slaughtered with intent (to do subsequent Avodos or eat the meat) Chutz li'Zemano (after the permitted time) or Chutz li'Mekomo (outside the permitted place).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	R. Yehoshua says, the rule is, Me'ilah applies only if it was never permitted to Kohanim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	Cases that had She'as Heter (a time at which it was permitted to Kohanim) are when the Korban (the Eimurim or meat) was Lan (left overnight), it became Tamei, or it was Yotzei (it left the Azarah);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Cases that never had She'as Heter are when it was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, or Pesulim did Kabalah and Zerikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why must the Mishnah teach that Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south? Obviously, Shechitah in the south does not remove Me'ilah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Ula taught that if Kodshim died (without Shechitah), Me'ilah does not apply to them mid'Oraisa. One might have thought that Shechitah in the south is like being choked to death. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Kodshim that died are not fit for anything, but Shechitah in the south, although it disqualifies Kodshei Kodashim, it is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	2b (Rabah):</span> Im Alu (if they were brought on the Mizbe'ach) Yerdu (they are taken down).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yosef):</span> Im Alu Lo Yerdu (they are not taken down).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	They do not argue according to R. Yehudah (who says Im Alu Yerdu if the blood spilled, it was Lan, or was Yotzei). Here also, Yerdu. They argue according to R. Shimon (who says Lo Yerdu regarding anything brought on the Mizbe'ach).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	Rav Yosef holds like (the simple understanding of) R. Shimon. Rabah says R. Shimon refers only to things like blood put on the wrong half (upper or lower) of the Mizbe'ach if they were slaughtered in right place, but Shechitah in the south is like choking the animal to death.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Mishnah):</span> Me'ilah applies to Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> What is the difference between Me'ilah mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> A Chomesh is added (and an Asham is brought) only for Me'ilah mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Is there really Me'ilah mid'Rabanan?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Yes! Ula taught that if Kodshim died, Me'ilah does not apply to them mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Inference:</span> Me'ilah does not apply mid'Oraisa, but it applies mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	15a (R. Yanai):</span> One is liable for Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Ula said in R. Yochanan's name that if Kodshim died, mid'Oraisa Me'ilah no longer applies to them!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> He discusses Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> Surely, Me'ilah applies mid'Oraisa to a carcass of Bedek ha'Bayis, just like it applies to manure Hukdash for Bedek ha'Bayis! Rather, he discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	Correction:</span> R. Yanai means that the verse 'Nefesh Ki Sim'ol...' teaches about Me'ilah only for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Another verse teaches about Kodshei Mizbe'ach.</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 3:1):</span> If Kodshei Mizbe'ach died, mid'Oraisa there is no Me'ilah. There is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> If they died, they cannot be offered, and not redeemed, since we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs, so they are not called Kodshei Hashem. The Rambam connotes that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis are different. However, also those we do not redeem in order to feed them to dogs! Ula said Stam 'Kodshim that died.' Perhaps since initially there were not destined to be offered, even after they died they are still called Kodshei Hashem. They keep their Kedushah, just we do not redeem them because we cannot fulfill 'v'He'emid v'He'erich' (standing up the animal for assessment). Kodshei Mizbe'ach were initially destined to be offered, but now they cannot be. They are uprooted, and cease to be Kodshei Hashem, and there is no Me'ilah. Alternatively, perhaps it is a bigger Chidush regarding Kodshei Mizbe'ach (that there is no Me'ilah after they died). This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> Ula taught Stam about Kodshim that died. Why does the Rambam specify Kodshei Mizbe'ach? Perhaps he teaches about Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and all the more so Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis (that there is no Me'ilah after they died). This requires investigation. Also, this Perek discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach, therefore he began with them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Birkas ha'Zevach Me'ilah 15a DH Ileima, R. Akiva Eiger, Gilyon ha'Rambam):</span> It seems that the Kesef Mishneh (and Ri Korkus) overlooked Me'ilah 15a, which explicitly says that if Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis died, there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Me'ilah 15a DH v'Afilu):</span>  R. Chaim Kohen asked why there is Me'ilah for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis that died, since Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah cannot be done! Perhaps he holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah does not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. Alternatively, we discuss when there was Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah, and then the animal died before it was redeemed. Even so, Ula says that there is no Me'ilah. Seemingly, we already know this, for we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs! We can say that one may redeem them for other uses, e.g. to fuel a fire.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Keren Orah (on Tosfos):</span>  How can Tosfos answer that Ula holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah does not apply to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis? If so, there was no question against R. Yanai. Since Ula holds that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, therefore he said that there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa after death! Perhaps the Gemara holds that if so, there would be no Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan. Chachamim decreed to make Me'ilah mid'Rabanan only for Kodshei Mizbe'ach. The Kedushah of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is due to their value, and since after death they (cannot be redeemed and) are worthless, there is no Me'ilah at all. The Isur to redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs is mid'Rabanan. How can this uproot Me'ilah mid'Oraisa? Perhaps indeed this is Tosfos' answer to this question.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	Note - in some cases, an Isur Hana'ah mid'Rabanan (e.g. Chametz) can uproot what would have been Kidushin mid'Oraisa (Pesachim 7a)! However, not every Isur mid'Rabanan uproots the monetary value. See Sha'arei Yosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (to Birkas ha'Zevach's question - Keren Orah DH v'Ra'isi):</span> The Rambam (Hilchos Erchin 5:14) rules that Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah applies to Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, so if they died they must be buried. If so, surely there is no Me'ilah, like Tosfos said. We cannot answer like Tosfos that the animal died after Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah but before redemption, for the Rambam (ibid.) holds that the redemption must be while it is alive, like Tosfos (Chulin 135a DH v'Ha). We must say that the Rambam discusses Kodshei Mizbe'ach because there is no Me'ilah even mid'Rabanan regarding Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis according to the opinion that they require Ha'amadah v'Ha'arachah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan ha'Asid (Me'ilah 170:2):</span> The Rambam refers only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Rashi explains that there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa because they are not Kodshei Hashem. They are Pasul for Avodah, and have no Kedushas Damim because we do not redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs. We learn this from 'Tizbach (slaughter)', but do shear (blemished Korbanos); 'v'Achalta (you will eat)', but not for your dogs (Temurah 31a). This applies only to Kodshei Mizbe'ach. Bechoros 25a says that the Isur to shear or work with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, Me'ilah mid'Oraisa applies to dead Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span>	Note - Tosfos (Pesachim 29b DH Rav) says that the Isur to redeem Kodshim in order to feed them to dogs is mid'Rabanan. The Ritva (29a DH v'Chi) says that the Tana'im (29a) argue about whether the Torah permits this, but all agree that mid'Rabanan it is forbidden.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid.):</span> Similarly, if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, we already explained that there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. This is when there was never a Heter for Kohanim to eat them. If Kodshei Kodoshim were once permitted to Kohanim, and afterwards they were disqualified and forbidden to eat, there is no Me'ilah in something that was once permitted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid.):</span> E.g. if Kodshei Kodoshim became Pasul before the blood reached the Mizbe'ach properly, e.g. they were slaughtered in the south or the blood was received in the south, or Shechitah or Zerikah was at night, or there was an intent to eat them Chutz li'Zemano or Chutz li'Mekomo, or Pesulim did Kabalah or Zerikah, or the blood and all the meat left before Zerikah, or the blood was Lan, in all of these cases there is always Me'ilah, for there was never a Heter.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> The Gemara asked why the Mishnah needed to teach that Shechitah in the south does not remove Me'ilah. It answered that one might have thought it is as if the animal died (without Shechitah), and there is no Me'ilah mid'Oraisa. Really, they are different. Kodshim that died are not proper for anything, but Shechitah in the south is Kosher for Kodshim Kalim. Why did the Rambam teach everything together and say that the Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan? It seems that this is not a textual error, for he says 'and similarly, if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan.' Perhaps the Rambam discusses Korbanos that are eaten, for this removed Me'ilah mid'Oraisa, and since they cannot be offered even if they came on the Mizbe'ach, there is Me'ilah mid'Rabanan, but for Korbanos that are not eaten, there is Me'ilah mid'Oraisa. Alternatively, the Rambam said that if a Pesul of Korbanos occurred, we already explained that there is Me'ilah, i.e. mid'Oraisa, which is clear from what he says below. (Note: it seems that this answer says that there is a textual error.) This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> According to Rabah, we establish the Mishnah to discuss Me'ilah mid'Rabanan. This implies that Rav Yosef holds that the Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa. Rabah was refuted, so the Halachah follows Rav Yosef. However, investigation proves that the Me'ilah is mid'Rabanan. We said that they argue about whether the Me'ilah is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. This was according to R. Shimon. According to R. Yehudah, we say that all agree that Im Alu Yerdu. Since the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon, if there was no time that they were permitted, the Me'ilah is only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid.):</span> If the blood reached the Mizbe'ach properly and afterwards the meat or Eimurim was Lan or became Tamei or left, or some of the meat left before Zerikah, in all of these cases there is no Me'ilah in the rest of the meat, for it once had a Heter.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> The text should say 'there is no Me'ilah, *like* in the rest of the meat...'</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) MISTAKES WITH BIRD OFFERINGS</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Kinim (3:6) which discusses a woman who, before giving birth, said that she will bring two birds as a Korban if she gives birth to a boy. When she gives birth to a boy, she is obligated to bring two Olos ha'Of for her vow, in addition to the standard Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of that every woman brings after birth. However, when she brought the birds to the Kohen to offer as Korbanos, the Kohen mistakenly thought that each pair of birds was comprised of a Chatas and Olah (and not one pair comprised of a Chatas and Olah, and the other pair comprised of two Olos), and he offered them accordingly. The Mishnah says that if all of the birds were Torim, or all were Bnei Yonah, then the woman must bring only one replacement Korban for an Olas ha'Of, from that species. The problem arises when the birds were mixed; some were Torim and some were Bnei Yonah. The Mishnah in Kinim (2:5) states that a bird brought as a replacement must be of the same species as the bird that it is replacing. Since there is a doubt about which kind of bird was the one which became Pasul (i.e., which was brought as a Chatas instead of as an Olah), the woman must bring both a Tor and a Ben Yonah as replacement Olos.
</p><p>
The Mishnah then discusses two more cases. One is a case of 'Pirshah Nidrah,' meaning literally that the woman 'verbally expressed her Neder.' The second case is 'Kav'ah Nidrah,' meaning that the woman 'established her Neder.' Both of these cases result in the need to bring many more replacement Korbanos. What are these cases, and why do they result in the need to bring many more Korbanos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Pirshah Nidrah) explains that 'Pirshah Nidrah' means that the woman donating the Korbanos ha'Of specified in her Neder the species that she would bring to fulfill her Neder. She subsequently forgot which species she had intended to bring, and then she brought all of her Korbanos to the Kohen (who was also negligent and offered two Chata'os and two Olos from the four birds, instead of one Chatas and three Olos). The Mishnah states that she now must bring three Olos ha'Of: If all four birds that she brought were of one species (such as Torim), then she must replace the one Tor of the second pair, which was offered as a Chatas and not as an Olah. In addition, since it is possible that she specified that her Neder offering would be Bnei Yonah, she must bring two Bnei Yonah as Olos to fulfill her vow. Thus, she must bring a total of three additional birds.
</p><p>
If the birds that she brought were mixed (two Torim and two Bnei Yonah), and the Kohen does not know which set he offered first, then she must bring four replacement birds -- two Torim and two Bnei Yonah. If the two Bnei Yonah were offered last, then she must bring one replacement Ben Yonah to be offered as an Olah (to replace the Ben Yonah that was offered as a Chatas). She must also bring two Torim, since perhaps her Neder was to bring two Torim as Olos, and not two Bnei Yonah. She must also bring an additional Ben Yonah, since perhaps the two Torim were offered last, and while she is replacing the Tor that was offered as a Chatas with one of the two additional Torim that she is bringing, perhaps her Neder was to bring two Bnei Yonah as Olos, and thus she must bring an additional Ben Yonah (so that she is bringing a total of two Bnei Yonah and two Torim, to cover all of the doubts).
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Kav'ah Nidrah) explains that 'Kav'ah Nidrah' means that she established in her Neder that her voluntary offering would be brought together, at the same time, with the offering that she was obligated to bring as a result of giving birth. In this case as well, she specified, but forgot, which type of bird she would bring as her Neder. In this case, merely bringing replacement birds is not enough. Since she said that her Neder would be brought with her obligatory Korban Olah, replacing just one at a later date is not a valid replacement. Therefore, she must bring <i>five</i> birds to be offered as Olos: four birds which cover the possible voluntary offerings of two Torim and two Bnei Yonah, and one which represents her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Even though she already fulfilled her obligation of her Olas ha'Of, she established for herself an obligation to bring her voluntary offerings together with her obligatory Olah (or with a representative obligatory Olah). This is why she must bring an additional, fifth Olas ha'Of.
</p><p>
If the birds that she brought were of different species, then she must bring two birds in place of her obligatory Olas ha'Of. Since this is a replacement for her obligatory bird, if she is unsure which type of bird was brought originally, then she must bring one of each type to replace it, totaling six birds.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, <b>RAZAH</b>, and <b>BARTENURA</b> (Kinim 3:6) explain the cases differently (with slight variations). They explain that 'Pirshah Nidrah' does not mean that the woman said, at the time of her Neder, what types of bird she would bring to fulfill her Neder. She vowed only that she would bring two Olos ha'Of (but she did not specify what type of bird) if she would give birth to a boy. When she brought her birds to the Kohen, she explained ('Pirshah') that 'these two birds are for my obligatory Korban, and these two are for my voluntary offering.' The Kohen mistakenly offered both sets of birds as obligatory offerings for births, offering one as a Chatas and one as an Olah from each pair.
</p><p>
According to the Bartenura, the three birds brought in the case of 'Pirshah Nidrah' are not three Olos, but two Olos and one Chatas. Only the obligatory Olas ha'Of is valid when the Kohen offers two (from the two pairs) as an Olas ha'Of and two as a Chatas ha'Of. Therefore, the woman must bring replacements for the two birds of her Neder, which are Olos ha'Of, and one bird to replace her obligatory Chatas ha'Of.
</p><p>
If the birds that she brought were from different species (two Torim and two Bnei Yonah), then she must bring four replacement birds. This is because it is possible that the Torim that she intended to be offered as Olos (for her Neder) were offered as her obligatory offering (with one as an Olah and one as a Chatas), while the Ben Yonah that she brought as a Chatas was offered as an Olah. Only her obligatory Olah is valid. However, it is also possible that her obligatory Olah was done like a Chatas. Since she specified that only the Torim are her Neder and the Bnei Yonah are her obligatory Korbanos, and all of them might have been Pasul, she must bring all of her Korbanos again.
</p><p>
'Kav'ah Nidrah' means that she specified what type of birds she would bring for her Neder when she made the Neder. She then forgot which type she had pledged to bring. This adds to her replacement requirements two more Bnei Yonah (to fulfill her Neder), besides her requirement to replace the two Torim which might be Pasul and the Chatas which might be Pasul (as described in the case of 'Pirshah Nidrah'). If she brought two different types of birds, then she must bring four Olos and two Chata'os to account for the various possibilities. (See <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b>.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE STATUS OF THE BIRD WHEN 'MELIKAH' IS PERFORMED WITH A KNIFE</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a Kohen performs Melikah with his left hand or at night, the meat of the bird will not make the person who eats it Tamei (with Tum'as Neveilah) when it enters his Beis ha'Beli'ah (throat), even though the Korban is Pasul. The Mishnah later states a rule that whenever there is a situation of 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' (see the following Insight for definitions of 'Pesulo b'Kodesh'), the bird is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. What is the logic behind this rule? <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Einan) explains that since the Melikah is effective in that if the bird was placed on the Mizbe'ach it is left there ('Im Alu Lo Yerdu'), it follows that the bird is not considered a Neveilah either. This apparently follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who mentions this rule in the Mishnah later (84a).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Malak bi'Semol) has difficulty with this approach, according to <b>RABEINU TAM's</b> text of the Gemara. According to Rabeinu Tam's text (on 24b), there is a general Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon about whether Melikah may be done at night. The Tana Kama says that the Melikah is Pasul, and Rebbi Shimon says that it is valid. If Rebbi Shimon says that such a Melikah is valid, then why is Rashi's reasoning (as mentioned above) necessary to explain why the bird is not Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah? It is an entirely valid Korban!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that it must be that the Tana of the Mishnah agrees with the logic of Rebbi Shimon, but he does not agree with Rebbi Shimon's opinion in the case of Melikah performed at night.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Tana of the Mishnah could be Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah (84a) argues that only <i>animals</i> are not left on the Mizbe'ach when they are Pesulo b'Kodesh. Birds, in contrast, may be left on the Mizbe'ach. The verses from which Rebbi Yehudah derives that disqualified Korbanos may not be left on the Mizbe'ach discuss animals, not birds. Even though one of the verses must be referring to birds (because, otherwise, no Pasul bird-offering would ever be taken off the Mizbe'ach), that verse applies only when the Pesul was not b'Kodesh (see Tosfos to 84b, end of DH u'Motzi, who is not satisfied with this answer). The Mishnah here concurs with the view of Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
Many Mefarshim use this answer of Tosfos to reconcile an apparent contradiction in the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:6) rules that when an animal was slaughtered at night and subsequently placed on the Mizbe'ach, it must be removed. This apparently follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah later, who does not agree that Pesulo b'Kodesh allows something to remain on the Mizbe'ach. However, the Rambam elsewhere (ibid. 7:1) rules like the Mishnah here, that when Melikah is done to a bird at night, the bird is not Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah, even though this ruling follows the logic that Pesulo b'Kodesh enables something to be left on the Mizbe'ach!
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b>, <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b>, <b>CHOK NASAN</b> and others explain that the Rambam agrees with the second answer of Tosfos, according to which there is a difference between animals and birds, and both Mishnayos follow the view of Rebbi Yehudah. Accordingly, the Rambam is able to rule like both Mishnayos.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b>, <b>KEREN ORAH</b> (in his first explanation), and others explain that the two rulings of the Rambam depend on a different point. Rebbi Yehudah agrees that Korbanos that are Pesulo b'Kodesh <i>should</i> stay on the Mizbe'ach. The only reason why he says that they must be removed is that he has three verses that tell him that they may not stay on the Mizbe'ach (see 84a). However, these verses tell him only that the Korban must be removed from the Mizbe'ach, but not that the Korban is Metamei b'Veis ha'Beli'ah. The Rambam, therefore, understands that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Mishnah here as well, and he does not need to differentiate between Korbanos of animals and birds. (See also <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b>, Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 7:1, and <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> there.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> SHECHITAH IN WHICH THE KNIFE IS COVERED BY SKIN <span class='indexentry'>[Shechitah: Chaladah]</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> If Melikah was done with a knife, the bird is Neveilah, and it has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (it is Metamei one who swallows a k'Zayis of it, and his garments)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 19b (Benei R. Chiya):</span> One moves the Simanim (the windpipe and foodpipe) behind the spine and does Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	20a - Question (R. Yanai - Mishnah):</span> Anything Kosher for Shechitah is invalid for Melikah. Anything Kosher for Melikah is invalid for Shechitah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> This teaches about moving the Simanim behind the spine. (It is Kosher for Shechitah, and hence invalid for Melikah.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Yirmeyah):</span> No, it excludes Molich u'Mevi (moving the knife or fingernail away and returning it), which is Kosher for Shechitah and invalid for Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This is like the opinion that Molich u'Mevi is invalid for Melikah. According to the opinion that it is Kosher for Melikah, what does the Mishnah teach?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Benei R. Chiya must hold that Molich u'Mevi is invalid for Melikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Kahana):</span> The Mitzvah of Melikah is to (press the fingernail and) cut straight down into the neck. This is the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion (R. Avin):</span> He holds that only this is Kosher, but not Molich u'Mevi.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (R. Yirmeyah):</span> If this is Kosher, all the more so, Molich u'Mevi is Kosher!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If so, what does he exclude (with the words '*this* is the Mitzvah')?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> He means that *even* this (cutting through pressing) is the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	20b (Ze'iri):</span> If the neckbone and most of the flesh were cut, the animal is a Neveilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Chisda):</span> A Mishnah already teaches this!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If Melikah was done with a knife, if one eats the bird, he and the clothes he is wearing (when he swallows) become Tamei (since the bird is a Neveilah).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	If cutting the neckbone and most of the flesh would make it only a Tereifah, but not a Neveilah, Melikah with a knife would be like slaughtering a Treifah (since the Simanim are cut after the neckbone and most of the flesh). This cannot be, for a slaughtered Treifah is not Neveilah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Melikah done with a knife makes a Neveilah, for it is not at all like Shechitah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Why is it unlike Shechitah?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</span> It is Chaladah (the knife is covered, or the Simanim are cut in the wrong direction).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> It is Drasah. (He cuts through pressing, and not through Molich u'Mevi).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span>	Rav Huna did not answer like Rava, for he holds that Molich u'Mevi is valid for Melikah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shechitah 3:10):</span> If one inserted the knife under the skin and slaughtered the Simanim normally, or Hichlid (concealed) the knife under tangled wool, or he spread a cloth over the knife and the neck and slaughtered under it, since the knife is not exposed, it is Safek Neveilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (6):</span> Re'em says that one may not make a small hole in the skin and insert the knife and slaughter, even though the knife is exposed opposite the Simanim. Sefer ha'Terumah rules that b'Di'eved it is Kosher, since the knife is exposed opposite the Simanim. If one slaughters with the end of the knife which is covered at the time of Shechitah, surely it is Pasul. Rashi (20b DH Malak) says that Melikah with a knife has Tum'as Beis ha'Bli'ah. Rav Huna says that this is due to Chaladah. One must be careful not to be too concerned for the skin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 6:23):</span> To do Melikah, he may go Molich u'Mevi, or press it down. He cuts the spine and neckbone without most of the flesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span>  R. Avin thought that Molich u'Mevi is Pasul for Melikah. R. Yirmeyah taught that all the more so, Molich u'Mevi is Kosher. Also, Rava and Rav Huna argued about this, and Rav Huna is Machshir. Therefore, we are Machshir.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam rules like Rav Huna, for R. Avin and R. Yirmeyah hold like him.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Chulin 20a DH Kotzetz):</span> Rav Kahana teaches that he cuts without Molich u'Mevi. He does not exclude Molich u'Mevi, for all the more so it is Kosher! The Torah explicitly excluded a knife and the neck. Whatever it did not explicitly exclude, it is better to do Melikah like Shechitah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Ashri (Chulin 1:25):</span> Rashi in Zevachim says that Melikah with the end of a knife is Chaladah, for he inserts the end under the bone. Therefore, one who is concerned for the skin and cuts with the end of the knife, he must be careful lest it be covered with skin and he cut Simanim with the end, for this is Chaladah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Kesav Yad, 68a DH Malak):</span> Melikah with a knife is not Shechitah, because it is with the end of the knife. He cuts the spine and neckbone until he reaches the Siman. He must make a small cut, lest he cut most of the flesh before reaching the Siman. This is possible only with the end of the knife, and this is Chaladah, like it says in Chulin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (20b DH Mipnei):</span> Our Gemara refutes Rashi. It is called Chaladah even though the Hava Amina is that he cuts most of the flesh!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (68a DH Malak):</span> Melikah with a knife is not Shechitah, like it says in Chulin, because it is Chaladah, because it is Drasah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Note - Drasah does not cause that it is Chaladah! Surely the text should say '*or* because it is Drasah' (like Mesores ha'Shas) or '*and* because it is Drasah' (Shitah Mekubetzes 17).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin 1:42):</span> We should say that the Halachah follows Rava against Rav Huna, for he is Basra (lived later)! Perhaps the Rambam rules like Rav Huna because we concluded 'Bnei R. Chiya hold that Molich u'Mevi is Pasul', which connotes that this is not the Halachah. R. Avin thought to say like Rava, but R. Yirmeyah corrected him, for whatever the Torah did not explicitly say cannot be like Shechitah, it is better to do Melikah like Shechitah. Also, the text should not say 'Rava'. We do not find that he argued with Rav Huna. Rather, it should say 'Rabah'. Rashi (20a DH ha'Nicha) says that Rabah argues with Rav Huna. Since Molich u'Mevi is Pasul, the Halachah follows Rav Huna, and such a Shechitah is Chaladah. Rashi (Zevachim 68a) says that Melikah with a knife is Chaladah, for he inserts the end of the knife, for he does not want to cut the majority of the flesh with the ncb before the Simanim. Even though Tosfos said that here we cannot explain like this, for here in the Hava Amina he cuts most of the flesh, this does not refute Rashi. We can say that in the conclusion, Rav Huna considers this Chaladah!  Piskei ha'Tosfos (62) says that this is Chaladah. Semag says so only if he cuts with the end of the knife. One could say that Re'em is stringent only l'Chatchilah, but Hagahos Maimoniyos says that Re'em considers it Neveilah. However, Tosfos and Semag say 'one need not be concerned', which shows that it is l'Chatchilah. Perhaps even Re'em holds that it is Neveilah only if he intends (to make only a small hole in the skin). One must be stringent when he is concerned for the skin.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	Note - Tosfos (Menachos 36a DH Amar) proved that Rava never saw Rav Huna, for Rav Huna died before Rav Yehudah, and Rava was born when Rav Yehudah died. The Chasam Sofer (Sukah 42a (16)) questioned this proof, for there were two Rav Huna's, like Tosfos (Chulin 13a) proved.</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 24:9):</span> If one in concerned for the skin, he must be careful not to make a big hole and slaughter with the end of the knife and it is covered by the skin. However, if he slaughters with the middle of the knife, he need not be concerned if the end of the knife is covered by the skin, since the part of the knife that cuts is not covered. Some are stringent even about this. One should be concerned for his opinion l'Chatchilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kasuv):</span> Sefer ha'Mitzvos says that one must be careful not to slaughter with the end of the knife. The Re'em is stringent even if he slaughters with the middle of the knife. Hagahos Maimoniyos says that Semag is Machshir with the middle of the knife only b'Di'eved. Even though Semag connotes that he permits l'Chatchilah, since Re'em forbids, it is proper to concerned l'Chatchilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (5):</span> Tosfos brought from Rashi that when the end of the knife is concealed, it is Chaladah. Also Hagahos Ashri (25) says so. We hold like this, unlike the Shulchan Aruch, who is Machshir b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (5):</span> This is not difficult for the Shulchan Aruch. Rashi discusses when he cuts the Simanim with the point of the knife. Since he must avoid cutting most of the flesh with the neckbone, he must insert the knife under the flesh on the neckbone, lest he cut it, and under the flesh he cuts the neckbone and Simanim. The knife is covered in the place of Shechitah. Hagahos Ashri and the Roke'ach explicitly say so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (Kuntres Acharon):</span> One must be careful when slaughtering with the end of the knife, for then it is prone to be covered with skin. One must be careful that the knife is exposed at the end where he cuts. However, when he slaughters with the middle, surely he need not be concerned if the end is covered. Also the Prishah (3) says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (9):</span> In the first case, when he slaughters with the point and there the knife is covered by the skin, the Mechaber disqualifies even b'Di'eved. The Beis Yosef connotes like this. The Levush says that one must be careful not to cover any part of the knife at the time of Shechitah, whether opposite the Simanim or opposite the knife not opposite the Simanim. He did not explain well; the first case is Pasul even b'Di'eved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (9):</span> Regarding mid'Oraisa laws, we follow the stringent opinion (that this is Chaladah - Chulin 20b). Even though Tosfos rejected Rashi, the Poskim defend Rashi.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosefes Merubah (in Otzar Meforshim in Shulchan Aruch ha'Shalem):</span> One must be careful to remove the rope from the animal's neck at the time of Shechitah. One should disqualify the Shechitah if it covered even a hair's breadth of the knife. Similarly, if one must wrap a cloth on the knife, e.g. it has a nick and it is Yom Tov or pressed circumstances so one cannot sharpen it (to remove the nick), one must be careful that the cloth not extend further along the length of the thick side of the knife than along the blade. Perhaps he will cut with a part of the blade and opposite it (on the thick side) it was covered with the cloth (Simlah Chadashah 13)! Tevu'os Shor (15) says that this is not Chaladah, since the Shechitah is seen from the ends of the knife.</p>
<p class='otherhalachos'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'PESULO B'KODESH'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah teaches the principle that whenever a Korban is 'Pesulo b'Kodesh,' the meat of the Korban is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. Whenever the Korban is not 'Pesulo b'Kodesh,' the Korban is Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah. What is the meaning of 'Pesulo b'Kodesh'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH she'Pesulah b'Kodesh) explains that when the animal arrived in the Azarah fit to be a Korban, and afterwards it became Pasul, it is considered 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' and its meat is not Metamei in the Beis ha'Beli'ah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Amar Rav) disagrees with Rashi. (See <b>SEFER EIZEHU MEKOMAN</b>, who explains why Tosfos quotes the words of Rashi later and not the words of Rashi on the Mishnah here.) The Mishnah later (84a) lists Rove'a and Nirva (animals which had relations with people) as examples of animals which are not 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.' According to Rashi, if the relations occurred after the animal entered the Azarah, this also could be an example of 'Pesulo b'Kodesh'! The Mishnah, however, implies that these animals are never 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.'
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> answers that Rashi's explanation is the same as that of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos). The Rambam explains that 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' refers to when the Kohen who performs the Avodah has an invalidating thought or performs the Avodah in the wrong way. This renders the Korban Pasul, since the proper degree of Kedushah that one must have when offering the Korban has been violated. If the animal itself is lacking something before the Kohen performs the Avodah, this is not called 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.' The Yad Binyamin points out that the <b>BARTENURA</b> defines 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' using both definitions, that of Rashi and that of the Rambam. He concludes that Rashi's intention is not to differentiate between an animal which arrived at the Azarah in a state fit to be a Korban and one that arrived in an unfit state (as Tosfos understands), but rather to differentiate between an animal which became unfit when it came to the Azarah and was not treated as befits a Korban.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos argues that 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' means that the animal became Pasul after it was slaughtered and its blood was consecrated in a vessel ('Niskadesh b'Kli'). This explanation finds support in the Mishnah later (84a), which states that a blemished animal is not called 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.' The Gemara earlier (25b-26a) says that an animal can become disqualified because of a blemish only until the Kabalas ha'Dam is performed. If no blemished animal has the status of 'Pesulo b'Kodesh,' then the determining factor between 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' and not 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' is the animal's state at the moment of Kabalas ha'Dam, unlike Rashi who says that the cutoff point is when the animal enters the Azarah.
</p><p>
The Yad Binyamin says that if the above explanation is used to understand Rashi, then the Mishnah later is no proof for Tosfos at all. Rashi does not say that 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' is related to a specific time frame, but rather that it depends on what caused the Korban to become Pasul. The reason why a Ba'al Mum is not considered 'Pesulo b'Kodesh' is that it was Pasul inherently, without any invalidating thought or misdeed in the Avodah on the Kohen's part.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos suggests a third definition for 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.' Any Korban which potentially could be a valid Korban in a different area of Kodshim, but is deemed Pasul when brought in the form of a particular Korban, is called 'Pesulo b'Kodesh.' Tosfos points out that the Gemara in many places (including here) discusses where these types of Avodos, which are invalid for one Korban, are valid for another. This is also the opinion of the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>, Tosfos earlier (61a, DH Kodem), and Tosfos in Me'ilah (3a, DH Chada). (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'KEMITZAS ZAR' AND 'MELIKAS ZAR'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: Rebbi Yitzchak said that he heard two Halachic rulings, one concerning Kemitzah performed by a Zar (a non-Kohen), and one concerning Melikah performed by a Zar. He heard that if the Minchah offering and bird offering were already placed on the Mizbe'ach, one must be removed while the other may remain, but he did not remember which ruling applies to which Korban. Chizkiyah said that it is logical that the Kemitzah (the Minchah) must be removed, but not the bird. Why is this logical? The Gemara explains that there is an opinion that both a Minchah offering and a bird offering were permitted be offered on a Bamah. According to this opinion, it stands to reason that <i>both</i> the Kemitzah and Melikah of a Zar may remain on the Mizbe'ach once placed there.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that a Kemitzah of a Zar must be removed from the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Kemitzah brought on a Bamah was different, because a Minchah offering brought on a Bamah needed no proper sanctification in a Kli Shares. What is the logic behind the Gemara's conclusion?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ein Kidush) and the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> explain that the Minchah offering brought on a Bamah did not require the sanctification of a Kli Shares in order to be offered, and therefore it differed from the Kemitzah brought in the Beis ha'Mikdash, which requires the special degree of Kedushah that the Kli Shares gives it. Consequently, the fact that the Kemitzah of a Zar for a Minchah offering brought on a Bamah was valid does not teach that the same is valid in the Beis ha'Mikdash. In contrast, a bird offering (and Melikah) is the same for both a Bamah and the Beis ha'Mikdash. No Kli Shares is necessary for Melikah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, nor was it necessary for a Bamah. Therefore, it is possible to learn from the bird offering of a Bamah -- for which the Melikah of a Zar is valid -- that the Melikah of a Zar is valid for a bird offering in the Beis ha'Mikdash as well, and thus it should not need to be removed from the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:15) learns the Gemara's conclusion differently. He understands that the reason why the Kemitzah performed by a Zar is removed from the Mizbe'ach is that 'it is as if it was never made Kadosh.' The Rambam seems to refer to the Gemara later (83b) which states that a Kometz which was not sanctified in a Kli Shares is removed from the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
However, if this is the Gemara's logic, then why does it say that there was no Kidush of a Kli Shares for a Minchah offering of a <i>Bamah</i>? It should say that the Kemitzah performed by a Zar is considered as though it was not sanctified in a Kli Shares for the <i>Mizbe'ach</i>! Apparently, the Rambam understands that if, in some other area (i.e. the Minchah offering of a Bamah), the Kemitzah of a Zar is valid even though his act of placing the offering in a Kli Shares does not sanctify the offering, then that would teach that the same applies for the Kemitzah offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash. However, in the case of a Bamah, no Kidush of a Kli Shares is necessary at all, and therefore it cannot be learn from there that the Kemitzah of a Zar is valid in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The Rambam's explanation is difficult to understand. The Gemara later (84a) says that if the Kabalas ha'Dam of a Korban was performed by a person who was ineligible to do it, the animal is not removed from the Mizbe'ach. If the Kemitzah of a Zar is not considered to have any Kedushah from the Kli Shares (since it was placed into the Kli by a Zar) and thus it must be removed from the Mizbe'ach, then why is the blood that is received in a Kli Shares by a Zar considered to have enough Kedushah to permit it to remain on the Mizbe'ach? Why is one Kidush of a Zar in a Kli Shares effective and one is not?
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (Kodshim 19:11) explains that blood attains the Kedushah of a Korban through two acts: the Shechitah (when the knife draws out the blood), and the receiving of the blood in the Kli Shares. Even though the Kedushah of the Kli is not present in the case of the Gemara later (84b), the fact that the blood attains Kedushah by being drawn by the knife is sufficient reason to allow it to remain on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
However, according to this explanation, that only something which has received Kedushah in some way may remain on the Mizbe'ach, why is the Melikah of a Zar enough to permit the bird to remain on the Mizbe'ach? Even though the bird offering of the Mizbe'ach is comparable to the bird offering of a Bamah, where does it acquire the necessary Kedushah? The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> answers that the fact that the Melikah of a Zar is valid for a Bamah shows that the bird offering attains some degree of Kedushah. Thus, it also attains Kedushah when it is done this way (that is, by a Zar) in the Beis ha'Mikdash. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DO NEVEILAH AND TREIFAH JOIN WITH EACH OTHER? <span class='indexentry'>[Neveilah and Tereifah]</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. Yehudah) Suggestion:</span> Perhaps Nivlas Of Tamei (a Tamei species of bird that died without slaughter) has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (it is Metamei one who swallows a k'Zayis of it, and his garments)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	Rejection 'Neveilah u'Treifah Lo Yochal' refers to birds forbidden due to Neveilah, but not to Tamei birds that are forbidden only due to eating a Tamei species.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Above, we used 'Treifah' to exclude Tamei animals (regarding Chelev). We should say that 'Chelev Neveilah' discusses Chelev forbidden due to Chelev, but not due to eating a Tamei species!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Abaye):</span> Rather, 'Treifah' is Metaher Chelev of a Treifah. One might have thought that since it is forbidden while alive, like a Tamei animal, its Chelev is Tamei. 'Treifah' teaches that this is not so.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection #1:</span> Likewise, we should need 'Treifah' regarding Nivlas Of to teach that a Treifah has Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah. One might have thought that since one may not eat it, like a Tamei bird, it does not have Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection #2:</span> We cannot learn Treifah, which once was (potentially) permitted (it could have been slaughtered before it became Treifah), from Tamei, which was forbidden from birth!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rava):</span> 'Neveilah' teaches that when an animal becomes a Neveilah, the Isur of Neveilah is Chal (takes effect) on the Chelev (even though the Chelev was already forbidden). 'Treifah' teaches that the Isur Tereifah is Chal on the Chelev.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	The Torah must teach both. Had it said only 'Neveilah', one might have thought that it is Chal on the Chelev, because Neveilah is Tamei, but Treifah is not Chal on it. Had it said only 'Treifah', one might have thought that it is Chal on the Chelev, because Treifah is Chal on live animals, but Neveilah does not take effect on it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	78a (Reish Lakish):</span> If one ate Pigul and Nosar (and Tamei) that were mixed together, he is exempt. Surely, there is more of one than the other, and it is Mevatel it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	This teaches that different Isurim (forbidden things) can be Mevatel each other;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 56a (R. Nechemyah):</span> If a weasel bit an animal on the head, checking the membranes of the brain by hand is not reliable. This can permit a Neveilah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> It is not a Neveilah. It was slaughtered!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Correction:</span> Really, it is only a Tereifah.</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'achalos Asuros 4:17):</span> Neveilah joins with Tereifah. A half-k'Zayis of Neveilah joins with a half-k'Zayis of Tereifah or meat from a living Tahor animal. The general rule is, two Lavim do not join, except for Neveilah and Tereifah, since Tereifah is the beginning of Neveilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> The Rambam holds that Tereifah and Neveilah are the same Shem (Isur), even though they are two Lavim. Similarly, meat from a live animal joins with Neveilah, since we learn its Isur from 'u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Treifah.' The Sifri (Re'eh) says that 'Lo Sochal *Kol* Neveilah' includes Tereifah. They join because they are learned from the same Lav. R. Yochanan says so in the Yerushalmi. This is the Rambam's source. The Sugya in Zevachim supports him. It is difficult. We exclude Tamei birds because they are not forbidden due to 'do not eat Neveilah.' We should similarly exclude Tereifah and Chelev! This is good for the Rambam. Since Neveilah and Tereifah join, we cannot say that the Isur Neveilah will not take effect on Tereifah, for they are one Isur and Tereifah is the beginning of Neveilah. Therefore, if a Tereifah died, one is lashed for Neveilah. In Kidushin 77b, the Gemara suggested that one gets three sets of lashes for a woman widowed three times, according to the opinion that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur (a second Isur does not takes effect on something already forbidden). This must be because Ein Isur Chal Al Isur does not apply to one Isur and one Lav. The same applies to Tereifah and Neveilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (78a DH ha'Pigul):</span> A Mishnah (Me'ilah 17a) teaches that Pigul and Nosar do not join with each other, because they are different Isurim. The Gemara says that this refers to Tum'ah, but all Pasul Kodshim join regarding an Isur to eat them - 'Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem.' That is when they were not mixed. Here, they were mixed, so they are Mevatel each other. Alternatively, here we discuss lashes for Pigul or Nosar. Indeed, they join with each other regarding 'Lo Yochal Ki Kodesh Hem.' Further, there are no lashes for that Lav, since it is Lav shebi'Chlalos (different Isurim forbidden by one Lav).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (56a DH Neveilos):</span> Why does the Gemara say that it is not a Neveilah? R. Yehudah holds that Shechitah of a Tereifah bird is not Metaher from Tum'ah! R. Nechemyah holds that it is Metaher, therefore he should not call it Neveilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Achiezer (2 YD 6:5):</span> Pnei Moshe (Yerushalmi Nazir 6) says that R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about a Tereifah that became a Neveilah. Reish Lakish obligates only one set of lashes because he does not expound 'Kol Neveilah' to include a Tereifah. They are two Isurim, so Neveilah is not Chal on Tereifah. What was Tosfos' question from R. Yehudah? He holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur, therefore there is no Chiyuv for Neveilah. If so, the Gemara asked properly! Rather, all hold that Tereifah is the beginning of Neveilah (so Ein Isur Chal Al Isur does not apply). R. Yehudah holds that even though the Tereifah gets Tum'as Neveilah, the Isur Neveilah does not take effect, just like it does not take effect on a Tamei bird.</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 27:1):</span> If the Shechitah was invalid, it is a Neveilah. If the Shechitah was proper, but something else forbids, it is a Tereifah. If the neckbone was broken and most of the flesh with it, it is a Neveilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Beis Yosef DH u'Mah):</span> Why did the Tur need to write what is Neveilah and what is Tereifah? Both are forbidden. The only difference is Tum'ah. The Tur does not teach laws of Tum'ah, only Isur v'Heter!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (2):</span> This is relevant for us regarding Oso v'Es Beno (the Isur to slaughter an animal and its child on the same day). If it became a Neveilah, it was not a Shechitah. If it was only a Tereifah, one may not slaughter the other on the same day. Alternatively, it affects the law of two k'Zeisim (YD 98:9. If one k'Zayis each of two different Isurim fell into 59 k'Zeisim of Heter, each k'Zayis joins with the the Heter to be Mevatel the other Isur.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Drishah (2):</span> Some say that it is relevant to Kisuy ha'Dam (the next Siman). If it became Neveilah, there is no Mitzvah of Kisuy. Even though one who slaughters a Tereifah is exempt, if it was Kosher and slaughtered properly and afterwards became Tereifah, he must cover the blood. This is wrong. We do not cover a Chayah's blood before checking the lungs. If it is found to be Tereifah, we do not cover the blood, even though at the time of Shechitah we had no reason to think that it is Tereifah. Some say that it is relevant to Bitul in 60. Even though the Tur discussed blood and Chelev, the same applies to two k'Zeisim of meat of different Isurim. This is wrong. He permits only when the Isurim are dissolved. When Pigul, Nosar and Tamei are mixed, each is Batel in the others regarding lashes, but one may not eat the mixture, for their taste is not Batel. Likewise, one cannot say that it is relevant to Bitul in the majority when Tereifah and Neveilah are in a dry mixture. Even though it is relevant to lashes, the Tur does not come to teach about lashes! Some say that it is relevant to Oso v'Es Beno. Also, if a chicken was slaughtered and an egg was found inside in its shell, if it is a Safek Shechutah/Safek Tereifah, the egg is forbidden. If it is a Safek Shechutah/Safek Neveilah, the egg is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (Kuntres Acharon):</span> We can say that Tereifah and Neveilah help to be Mevatel the other, e.g. they are different species, e.g. ox, ram and goat. Each helps to be Mevatel the taste of the others. The Beis Yosef (98 DH Matzasi) brings so in the name of Or Zaru'a. Also, since when they are mixed dry, Tereifah and Neveilah help to exempt for lashes for the other, even though mid'Rabanan it is still forbidden to eat the mixture, the Isur is lighter, and if there is a Safek we can be lenient about a Safek mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avnei Nezer (YD 18):</span> Tevu'os Shor (33) agreed with the Bach. I disagree. The Rambam says that Tereifah and Neveilah join with each other, for they are one Isur. Therefore, they are not Mevatel each other. (Magihah - i.e. all agree to this. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 18:20) holds that even Pigul, Nosar and Tamei are not Mevatel each other. The Bach holds like the first answer in Tosfos (78a), that when the Isurim are mixed, they are Mevatel each other. However, Tosfos gave two other answers, and we always hold like the last answer. A proof is from a Ben Paku'a (a fetus found inside a slaughtered animal). If the mother is Tereifah, slaughtering the calf permits it. One cannot permit it through slaughtering the mother, for then it is (considered a Tereifah) like one of the mother's limbs. If it died without Shechitah, in any case it is forbidden. We cannot permit it through the mother, for then it is a Tereifah. We cannot slaughter it itself, for then it is Neveilah. Perhaps this is the Rambam's source that Neveilah and Tereifah join. The Ritva and Ran (Sanhedrin 112a DH Behemah) say that if half an animal belongs to an Ir ha'Nidachas, it is totally forbidden to eat. The Shechitah does not pertain to one of the Simanim, so it does not permit eating it. It is an improper Shechitah. Therefore, slaughtering a Tereifah mother is an improper Shechitah and does not permit the fetus. The Isur 'Eino Zavu'ach' (it was not slaughtered) applies to every Tereifah. Therefore, it joins with the Isur Neveilah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avnei Milu'im (Teshuvah 4 DH uvi'Prishah):</span> Tevu'os Shor defended the Bach. Different parts of an animal have different tastes, e.g. the liver and (Stam) meat. They should be Mevatel each other; they are not, because it is one Lav. Isur v'Heter (24) connotes unlike this, but it is possible that he agrees. In Klal 27 he says 'if Isurim have different tastes, even if they are from one Lav, or two Lavim that join for lashes, different tastes do not join.' This connotes that even if they are from one Lav, different tastes do not join. However, perhaps this is only when they are from two Lavim included in one Lav, since each by itself is Batel. The Torah included all Isurim for lashes ('Lo Sochal Kol To'evah') only when each is forbidden by itself. This Lav does not include when each is Batel by itself. When it is truly one Isur, e.g. Neveilah, even different tastes are not Mevatel each other.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE PROHIBITION OF 'NEVEILAH' WITH REGARD TO NON-KOSHER TYPES OF ANIMALS</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: In the Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah learns that the meat of Neveilah of a Tamei bird (any species of bird that is not Kosher) does not cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah (the garment of a person who swallows such meat does not become Tamei). He derives this from the verse, 'Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal' -- 'a Neveilah and Tereifah one may not eat' (Vayikra 22:8). Only an item which is prohibited because of the Isur of Neveilah is included in the verse, as opposed to something which is already forbidden because it is a non-Kosher species. The Gemara in Chulin (100b) deduces from Rebbi Yehudah's statement that he maintains 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur' -- once an object is prohibited with one Isur, it cannot become prohibited again with another Isur.
</p><p>
Does Rebbi Yehudah follow the same opinion with regard to non-Kosher <i>animals</i> as well? In a practical sense, does Rebbi Yehudah maintain that the meat of a non-Kosher animal is forbidden only because of the Torah's prohibition against eating a species that is Tamei, or is there also an Isur of Neveilah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 4:2) rules that the prohibition against eating Neveilah applies only to Kosher species. Meat from non-Kosher species is forbidden only because of the Isur against eating a non-Kosher species. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> comments that the source of the Rambam's ruling is the Beraisa here.
</p><p>
The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> has difficulty with the Rambam's ruling. The Gemara later (70b) differentiates between non-Kosher birds -- which do not cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah, and non-Kosher animals -- which do cause Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah. Since the Gemara says that the Beraisa's statement does not apply to animals with regard to Tum'as Beis ha'Beli'ah, how does the Rambam know that the Beraisa's statement still applies with regard to the Isur Neveilah? Furthermore, even if the Beraisa's statement applies also to animals, the Gemara itself discusses only Tum'ah, and not whether or not the <i>Isur</i> of Neveilah applies. Indeed, the Gemara later teaches that the Isur of Neveilah and the Tum'ah that it causes are not dependent on each other. The Gemara says that the Chelev of a Neveilah is prohibited not only because of the Isur of Chelev, but also because of the Isur of Neveilah, even though it does not cause Tum'ah like Neveilah.
</p><p>
The <b>MABIT</b> in <b>KIRYAS SEFER</b> writes that the source for the Rambam's ruling here is his ruling that 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.' He does not derive his ruling here from the Beraisa in the Gemara (which indeed discusses only Tum'ah and not the Isur). (It could be that this is also the intention of the Magid Mishneh when he comments that the source of the Rambam is the Beraisa here. He may mean merely that the source of the Rambam is the principle of 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur,' which is deduced from the Beraisa.)
</p><p>
However, the Magid Mishneh himself is left with a different question on the Rambam's ruling. The Gemara in Makos (16b) says that if one crushes nine ants together and combines the mixture with a live ant and eats the entire mixture, he transgresses the five prohibitions against eating a live insect ('Biryah') and one transgression against eating a k'Zayis of Neveilah. The Gemara there clearly states that that the prohibition of Neveilah applies to non-Kosher species (i.e. ants) as well! Moreover, the Rambam himself rules in accordance with this Gemara (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 2:24). How are we to understand the Rambam's ruling?
</p><p>
The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> avoids this question by saying that the Rambam understands that the Gemara in Makos does not mean that the person transgresses the Isur of Neveilah when he eats the ants, but rather he transgresses the prohibition against eating a k'Zayis of Basar Tamei. This is alluded to in the wording of the Rambam when he writes that 'five [sets of Malkus] are given due to the one [live] ant, and one [set of Malkus] is given because of a k'Zayis from the Neveilah <i>of Teme'im</i>.' The fact that the Rambam adds the seemingly unnecessary phrase 'Neveilah <i>of Teme'im</i>' may allude to the fact that the Isur is Basar Tamei, and not Neveilah. (See also <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> 4:1, and <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> YD 29:3.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> (Chulin 100b) also asks how the Beraisa here is to be reconciled with the Gemara in Makos. He concludes that there <i>is</i> an Isur of Neveilah for all Tamei species besides birds, despite the fact that the principle of 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur' should apply. This is because the Torah calls other Tamei species 'Neveilah' (see Vayikra 5:2). The Beraisa here is exclusively stating that <i>birds</i> do not have an Isur Neveilah, while other Tamei species do have an Isur Neveilah. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> to Makos 16b, DH Risek.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE NEED FOR TWO SOURCES TO TEACH THAT BOTH 'NEVEILAH' AND 'TEREIFAH' APPLY TO 'CHELEV'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: Rava learns from the apparently extra verse, 'v'Chelev Neveilah v'Chelev Tereifah... v'Achol Lo Sochluhu' -- 'the Chelev of a Neveilah and the Chelev of a Tereifah... you shall not eat it' (Vayikra 7:24), that the Torah applies both the Isur of Neveilah and the Isur of Tereifah to Chelev. If not for this verse, one would have thought that <i>neither</i> of these Isurim applies to Chelev, because of the principle of 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.' Since the item is already prohibited because of the Isur of Chelev, the Isur of Neveilah and the Isur of Tereifah cannot take effect. The Torah here teaches an exception to the general rule.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Torah needs to state that both Isurim, Neveilah and Tereifah, apply to Chelev. It would have sufficed to teach that <i>one</i> of them applies, and one would have been learned from the other. The Gemara answers that one would not have been able to derive one from the other. Had the Torah taught that the Isur of Neveilah applies to Chelev, one would have known only that Neveilah applies to Chelev, but not that the Isur of Tereifah applies to Chelev. One would have said that since Neveilah causes people to become Tamei, it is a very severe prohibition, and thus it also applies to Chelev. The Isur of Tereifah, in contrast, would not apply to Chelev because of the general rule of 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur.'
</p><p>
On the other hand, had the Torah taught only that the Isur of Tereifah applies to Chelev, one would not have been able to learn Neveilah from Tereifah, because the Isur of Tereifah is more severe since it applies even when the animal is alive. Thus, it is a strong enough prohibition to apply to Chelev. The Isur of Neveilah, in contrast, applies only after the animal dies, and thus the general rule of 'Ein Isur Chal Al Isur' would prevent it from applying to Chelev. This is why the Torah needs to mention both Neveilah and Tereifah.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Iy) asks that there seems to be a contradiction between the logic of the Gemara here and the logic of the Gemara in Chulin (37b). The logic which the Gemara here uses to show that Tereifah is a stronger Isur is that the Isur applies even when the animal is alive. However, the Gemara in Chulin gives the same feature of the Isur of Tereifah as a reason for why it is a <i>weaker</i> prohibition! The Gemara there attempts to make a Kal va'Chomer to derive Neveilah from Tereifah: if the Isur of Tereifah, which takes effect when the animal is alive, applies to Chelev, then certainly the Isur of Neveilah, which takes effect after the animal's death, should also apply to Chelev. This is the exact opposite of the logic of the Gemara here. How are these two Gemaras to be reconciled?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> here refers to his explanation in Chulin (37b, DH u'Mah me'Chayim). There, Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that the Gemara in Chulin is questioning its original assumption that a Mesukenes (an animal with physiological symptoms of impending death, as discussed in the Mishnah there) is forbidden and is considered a Tereifah. The Gemara asks that if the Isur to eat an animal that is a Tereifah, which does not cause Tum'ah while it is alive, takes effect on Chelev, then certainly the Isur of Neveilah, which does cause Tum'ah, takes effect on Chelev. At this stage, the Gemara assumes that every Neveilah is first a Mesukenes before it dies, and thus the animal is forbidden as Neveilah even while it is alive, because it certainly will become a real Neveilah. This is why the Gemara cannot refute its Kal va'Chomer by saying that the Isur of Tereifah is unique because it applies even when the animal is alive; the Isur of Neveilah also applies when the animal is alive, because of its status as a Mesukenes! The Gemara here in Zevachim, however, knows that a Mesukenes is <i>not</i> forbidden. Consequently, the Isur of Neveilah takes effect only when the animal dies, and thus the Isur of Tereifah, which takes effect while the animal is still alive, is considered a stronger prohibition.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARAM</b> in Chulin has a different text of Tosfos here in Zevachim. Instead of the words, 'v'Sham Pirashti' -- 'and there (in Chulin) I explained it,' as our text of Tosfos reads, the Maharam's text of Tosfos reads, 'v'Sham Piresh Rashi' -- 'and there Rashi explained it.'
</p><p>
What is Rashi's answer to this question? The Maharam explains, based on Rashi in Chulin (DH u'Mah me'Chayim, DH Michlal), that the Gemara's conclusion is that the Isur of Tereifah indeed is more stringent than the Isur of Neveilah. The Isur of Tereifah is not due to the fact that the animal is going to die and become a Neveilah. Rather, the Torah forbids eating an animal which is missing vital parts. Therefore, the Gemara here in Zevachim says that if the Torah would have taught only that the Isur of Tereifah takes effect on Chelev, one would not have known that the Isur of Neveilah also applies to Chelev, since Neveilah takes effect only after the animal dies. The Gemara in Chulin, however, originally assumed that the Isur of Tereifah is due to the fact that the animal is about to become a Neveilah. If that is the reasoning behind the prohibition, then it makes sense to say that Neveilah is the stronger prohibition, since a Tereifah is forbidden only because of Neveilah. This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> in his comments to Tosfos here. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> A FLAWED SEFER TORAH THAT BECAME MIXED WITH OTHERS <span class='indexentry'>[Sefer Torah: Bitul]</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> If any Zevach became mixed with Chata'os ha'Mesos (Chata'os that cannot be offered; they must be left to die) or with Shor ha'Niskal (it was sentenced to be stoned), and we do not know which is which), even if one was mixed with 10,000, all must die.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (59b DH v'Ad):</span> Heter is not Batel. It is the way of Isur to be Batel, but not Heter.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis She'arim (YD 364):</span> Isur can be Batel because it is an existence. Heter is not an existence. It is merely the lack of Isur. A lack cannot be Batel. If so, a Pasul is not an existence. It is merely the lack of Kashrus, so it cannot be Batel.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (OC 143:4):</span> In pressed circumstances, if the Tzibur has only a Pasul Sefer Torah and cannot fix it, some permit reading in it b'Tzibur with Berachos. Some disqualify. If there is a complete Chumash without mistakes, one may be lenient to read in that Chumash.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hilchos Ketanos (1:67):</span> If a scribe forgot to be Mekadesh Azkaros (names of Hashem), it is not Batel even in 1000, like it says in Zevachim. Perhaps in such a case, the Poskim would admit that the initial Kidush (of the first Azkarah) helps.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Lechem Yehudah (YD 279):</span> Hilchos Ketanos says that if one forgot to be Mekadesh an Azkarah, it is not Batel, even in 1000. If a mistake was found in a Sefer Torah, and it was forgotten, and it became mixed with another Sefer Torah, one must search again and again until finding the mistake. If he searched and did not find it, one can permit due to a Sefek-Sefeka (two doubts). The Rema says that in pressed circumstances, some permit reading b'Tzibur in a Pasul Sefer Torah with a Berachah. Perhaps this is the Halachah. Even if it is not, the Rema says in the name of the Ran that one may be lenient to read in a correct Chumash, even if other parts of the Sefer Torah have mistakes. Also, perhaps we read in the Sefer Torah without a mistake! It seems that one may be lenient even if he has only these two Sifrei Torah, and he needs to read in both of them, due to Sefek-Sefeka.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yad Eliyahu (88):</span> If a mistake was found in a Sefer Torah, and it was forgotten, and it became mixed with another Sefer Torah, I say that it is Batel in the majority. Do not say that it is important, so it is not Batel even in 1000. The Pesul is not important, only the Sefer itself is. There is no Isur to read in it. It has Kedushah, just the Tzibur must use a Kosher Sefer. Therefore, the Isur is Batel in the majority. This is unlike the case of Hilchos Ketanos. There, we knew the Sefer Torah with the Pesul. It cannot be Batel. Here we can say that the entire Sefer Torah is Kosher, and it is Batel in the majority. This is like salt full of blood. Even though salt is added for taste and it is not Batel if it itself was Asur, e.g. it was offered to idolatry, if it is Asur only due to blood absorbed in it, it is Batel. I say that even if there are only three Sifrei Torah and one must read from all of them on one Shabbos, it is permitted. We do not make the usual stringencies of dry mixtures. Also, many are lenient about mistake, even though this is not the custom. Also, perhaps the mistake is in a different Chumash. The Rema says that we may rely on this in pressed circumstances. Here, one may be lenient even not in pressed circumstances. However, due to the Isur to keep a Sefer with mistakes, one must be zealous to find the mistake.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shirei Berachah (on Birkei Yosef YD 279):</span> It seems that Yad Eliyahu overlooked Beis Lechem Yehudah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ha'aros on Birkei Yosef:</span> We can also say that Bitul makes Isur as if it is not, but we have no source that Bitul b'Rov helps for Mitzvos to make something considered Lishmah. The Rashba says that when dry things mix, Bitul b'Rov teaches that what is in front of us is Heter. Therefore, one person may eat all three pieces one after the other. If Sifrei Torah became mixed, Bitul b'Rov can teach that any one is Kosher, but not that all are Kosher. We attribute to the majority when possible.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (YD 277):</span> A Tzibur had a Sefer Torah with a mistake. Another Tzibur borrowed a Sefer Torah and returned it, and said that there was a mistake in it. It is not known if they borrowed the one known to have a mistake, or one of the others. Yad Eliyahu said that one Sefer Torah is Batel in two others, for the mistake is not an important matter (that is not Batel). Even if there were only three Sifrei Torah in all, he permits using all at once. The Magen Avraham (437:4) says that whenever there is Bitul b'Rov, even if one could check it, we rely on the majority. This is why we do not check for the 18 Treifos. I concluded that this is when there is no Chazakah against the Rov. However, whenever an Isur was mixed and it is possible to clarify and recognize it, it is not Batel. The Levush (brought in Taz 632:3) says that it can be Batel. He is totally wrong. Bechoros 25b says that R. Yosi cannot mean that one checks which is the Ba'al Mum to remove it, for surely, the first Tana would agree. We did not say that he discusses films in the eye and the animal was mixed with 1000 animals, i.e. and it is hard to check. Rather, if it is possible to check in any way (even if it is very hard) Bitul does not apply. The same applies to a mistake lost in a Sefer Torah. We also learn from there that here we cannot say that the one (mistake) that was lost is the one that was found, for mistakes in a Sefer Torah are more common than oxen goring each other. This is unlike the argument of Tana'im about one who checked and did not find. Here, we cannot say that a raven took it. Rather, we must say that he did not check well enough. Bitul b'Rov does not apply, even if he checked time after time and did not find it. Yad Eliyahu is difficult. He says that a Sefer Torah is important and it is not Batel, but since the Pesul is only due to the mistake, which is not important, it is Batel. He compares this to something Asur due to absorptions. This is astounding. This is like Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved (a nice portion fitting to honor someone) that absorbed a drop of milk. It is not Batel, even though the Isur is due to the milk. Since the piece itself becomes forbidden like Neveilah, so it is a Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved (which is not Batel). Here, due to the mistake, the Sefer is Pasul, or at least the Chumash it is in, for reading b'Tzibur. One may not rely on Yad Eliyahu.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Chasam Sofer:</span> The Beis Lechem Yehudah is reasonable. After many searches, we may rely on a Sefek-Sefeka (two doubts). Perhaps this Sefer Torah is Kosher, and even if it is not, perhaps there is no mistake in the Chumash we read in now. It is easy to check one Chumash to verify that it has no mistake. Clearly, it is best to do so. If even one Chumash cannot be checked quickly, one should not omit Kri'as ha'Torah due to this. If checking Tzitzis will cause one to miss Tefilah b'Tzibur, this is like one who cannot check, and we rely on Chazakah (Magen Avraham 8:11). The same applies here. Also, whenever something is Batel mid'Oraisa, and due to importance it is not Batel mid'Rabanan, if one of the mixture one fell into the sea and we need not rule about it, we attribute that the Isur fell and permit the others two at a time (YD 110:7). Here, we do not say that the Sefer Torah in which the mistake was found, even though we do not say that this is the one known to have a mistake, since mistakes are common, in any case we do not rule about this Sefer any more. Therefore, we can say that also the first mistake was in it, and permit the others. Even though here we cannot use the others two at a time, we can join it to the Sefek-Sefeka mentioned above to permit if there is no time to check a Chumash.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis She'arim (YD 364):</span> I do not understand what kind of mistake could be Batel. Bitul does not apply to a missing letter. Even regarding an extra letter, the Ran (Nedarim 52a) explained that since we hold that Min b'Mino and Olim (things offered on the Mizbe'ach) are not Mevatel each other, the Perush is not that the matter is Batel, rather, the Isur is Batel. Since the extra letter is there, how can we be Machshir the Sefer Torah?! Hilchos Ketanos says that if one was not Mekadesh an Azkarah, it is not Batel because a Sefer Torah is important. Even if it were not important, how can Bitul apply to a lack (of Kavanah)?!</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHEN DOES AN 'EGLAH ARUFAH' BECOME FORBIDDEN FROM BENEFIT?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that an Eglah Arufah becomes forbidden from benefit once it descends to Nachal Eisan, the place where its beheading takes place. In Kerisus (24b), this opinion is expressed by Rav Hamnuna. Rava there argues that it becomes forbidden from benefit only after it is beheaded. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Rotze'ach 10:6) rules like the Gemara here (and the opinion of Rav Hamnuna) and writes that the Eglah Arufah's descent to Nachal Eisan forbids it from benefit.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 5:16) was asked that the Rambam apparently contradicts himself. The Rambam, in the same chapter (Hilchos Rotze'ach 10:8), rules that if the killer was found before the calf was beheaded, then the calf may return to graze with its herd, which means that it is permitted to benefit from the calf. If the Rambam rules that the Eglah Arufah becomes Asur b'Hana'ah upon its descent to Nachal Eisan (even before it is beheaded), then it should remain Asur even if the killer is found! (The Rashba responds that he, too, was troubled by this contradiction, and after much effort he was unable to find a resolution.)
</p><p>
Is there any way to reconcile the words of the Rambam? (See also Insights to Kerisus 25:1.)
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> (Teshuvos 5:16) was asked that the Rambam apparently contradicts himself. The Rambam, in the same chapter (Hilchos Rotze'ach 10:8), rules that if the killer was found before the calf was beheaded, then the calf may return to graze with its herd, which means that it is permitted to benefit from the calf. If the Rambam rules that the Eglah Arufah becomes Asur b'Hana'ah at its descent to Nachal Eisan (even before it is beheaded), then it should remain Asur even if the killer is found! (The Rashba responds that he, too, was troubled by this contradiction, and after much effort had not come up with a resolution.)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Rotze'ach 10:6) and <b>BE'ER SHEVA</b> (Sotah 47a) answer that the case in which the killer is found differs from the normal case of Eglah Arufah. The Eglah Arufah is designated as such precisely because no killer was identified. If the person who designated the calf would have known that the killer would be found, then he never would have been Makdish the animal. Consequently, when the killer is found, the Kedushah of the animal is no longer present, for it is deemed to be 'Hekdesh b'Ta'us' (Hekdesh made in error), which is not valid. This is why it is permitted to benefit from the animal even though the Rambam rules that, normally, once the calf descends into Nachal Eisan it becomes forbidden.
</p><p>
The Kesef Mishneh and Be'er Sheva note that <b>TOSFOS</b> in Chulin (82a, DH veha'Tenan) discusses and rejects this approach. They point out that the Rambam nevertheless maintains that it is a valid approach. This answer also seems to be the intention of the <b>ME'IRI</b> in Kidushin (57a). (See also <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b>, Hilchos Rotze'ach 10:6, who discusses this answer at length.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Sotah #7) points out that the Yerushalmi in Sotah (9:6) also rules that the Eglah Arufah becomes Asur b'Hana'ah when it descends to Nachal Eisan, and that it is <i>not</i> forbidden if the killer is found, which is clearly like the Rambam's ruling. However, the Bavli maintains that the two Halachos are mutually exclusive, as the Gemara in Kerisus (25a) explicitly says.
</p><p>
Why does the Rambam follow the Yerushalmi's view instead of the straightforward ruling of the Bavli?
</p><p>
The Kehilos Yakov quotes the <b>PACHAD YITZCHAK</b> (a composition regarding how to approach the differences between the Bavli and Yerushalmi), who cites the <b>MAHARIK</b> who states that the Rambam follows the rulings of the Yerushalmi when the Yerushalmi gives a simple answer and the Bavli gives a more complex answer. The Kehilos Yakov suggests that the Rambam knew that the Halachah follows the opinion that the Eglah Arufah is forbidden once it descends into Nachal Eisan, and therefore he decided to align all rulings with this opinion, once he found that the Yerushalmi says that this is possible, even though the Bavli says that these Mishnayos are arguing. (See <b>MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH</b> who suggests another answer.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) IF THE OWNER OR ONE WITNESS TESTIFIES ABOUT A KILLER OX</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when an ox that was been sentenced to Sekilah for killing a person becomes mixed up with animals designated as Korbanos, all of the animals in the mixture must be put to death. However, if only one witness, or the owner himself, saw the animal kill a person, all of the animals in the mixture must be put out to pasture until they become blemished, and then they are sold. For each animal which was designated as a Korban, one animal must be brought as a Korban with the money from the sale. Each Korban purchased should be as valuable as the most valuable animal of the lot.
</p><p>
What is the reason why the owner of an ox or a single witness do not render the animal Chayav Misah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (71a, DH Nis'arvu) writes that the animal is exempt from Sekilah because of the rule of 'Modeh b'Kenas Patur,' a person's admission absolves him from the obligation to pay a Kenas.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Al Pi) questions Rashi's explanation from the Gemara in Sanhedrin (10a). The Gemara there teaches that if Reuven testifies with another witness that Shimon was Rove'a Reuven's ox, both Shimon and the ox Chayav Misah. Why does the Gemara in that case not apply the rule of 'Modeh b'Kenas Patur' and exempt the ox from Misah? (See the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b>, who writes that the text of Rashi should read, 'It is <i>like</i> 'Modeh b'Kenas Patur.'')
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv teaches that the ox is not put to death. The Gemara in Temurah (29a) explains that since the Torah needed to teach that an ox which kills (or is Nirva) in front of one witness may not be brought as a Korban, it must be that it <i>may</i> be eaten by an ordinary person. The Gemara there clearly states that the ox in such a case is not put to death.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b>, however, quotes the <b>MAHARSHAL</b>, who has difficulty with Tosfos' proof from the Gemara in Temurah. The Gemara in Temurah discusses only a case of an ox which kills (or is Nirva) in front of one witness. Why does Tosfos extend the Gemara's ruling to a case in which the owner saw the act? Perhaps in that case the common principle of 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din k'Me'ah Edim Dami' applies, as it applies in all monetary cases. This principle states that the admission of the defendant is tantamount to testimony of a hundred witnesses.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> challenges Rashi's explanation from a different angle. He asserts that nowhere does the Gemara refer to the death of an ox as a Kenas, a penalty. Why, then, is the ox not killed based on the testimony of the owner? The Shitah Mekubetzes explains that it is not killed because of the principle of 'Adam Karov Etzel Mamono' -- 'a person is a considered a relative with regard to his own money.' The Shitah Mekubetzes anticipates the obvious question: If this is the reason why the ox is not killed based on its owner's testimony, then why does the Gemara in Sanhedrin say that if Reuven testifies with another witness that Shimon was Rove'a his ox, both Shimon and the ox are killed? Since the owner is 'Karov Etzel Mamono,' his testimony should not be accepted!
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes answers that the principle of 'Adam Karov Etzel Mamono' does not apply in a case in which Beis Din would have to apply the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' -- 'we split his words.' This means that when the owner testifies about something else (Shimon's transgression) for which his testimony is acceptable, and according to that testimony the ox should also be killed, the principle of 'Adam Karov Etzel Mamono' does not apply. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> FIXED ISURIM <span class='indexentry'>[Isur: Kavu'a]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	70b (Mishnah):</span> If any Korban became mixed with Chata'os ha'Mesos (which must be left to die), even if one was mixed with 10,000, all must die.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	71a - Question:</span> Forbidden animals should be Batel amidst a majority of Heter!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	73a - Answer (Rav Ashi):</span> Living animals are important, so they are not Batel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> We should force them to separate from each other (so animals will separate from the mixture elsewhere, not in front of us). Each that separates is (assumed to be) from the majority!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rava):</span> Chachamim decreed not to do so, lest someone take in a way that is considered Kavu'a (i.e. directly from the mixture).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kesuvos 15a (R. Zeira):</span> Any Safek about an Isur Kavu'a (it is from a place where the Isur is known) is always considered an even doubt, whether this is a leniency or a stringency.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> What it his source for this law?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Beraisa):</span> If nine stores sell Kosher meat and one sells Neveilah, and one bought from one of the stores and does not know from which, the meat is forbidden. If meat is found, we follow the majority.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> There we are stringent. (We cannot learn from there to be lenient.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Beraisa):</span> If one frog is among nine Sheratzim and someone touched one of the 10 and does not know which, if this was in a Reshus ha'Yachid, he is Tamei. If it was in a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Tahor.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> What is the source from the Torah?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> D'Vei R. Yanai taught that Chachamim expound 'he waits in hiding' to exempt one who throws a rock into a crowd (and killed someone).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> The crowd consists of nine Nochrim and one Yisrael.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> Even if we would follow the majority, we could not kill the murderer!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> Half of them are Yisraelim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> We are always lenient about a Safek in capital cases! (We would not need a verse to teach the law.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span>	Rather, there are nine Yisraelim and one Nochri. Since they are Kevu'im, it is considered an even Safek.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 9b:</span> If there were nine piles of Matzah and one of Chametz, and a weasel took a piece from a pile, and we do not know from which it took, this is like the case of nine stores (it is considered an even Safek);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	If a piece separated from one of the piles and a weasel took it, this is like the Seifa (if meat is found, we follow the majority).</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 (Chulin 33b and 8:20):</span> If nine stores sell slaughtered meat and one sells Neveilah, and one bought from one of the stores and does not know from which, the meat is forbidden. If it was found in a Nochri's hand, it is permitted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> Every Isur Kavu'a is like an even Safek. Even though one piece of Isur is Batel in two pieces of Heter, that is when they are mixed and the Isur cannot be recognized. Bitul does not apply when the Isur is recognized in its place. Likewise, when an important matter became mixed and is not Batel, it is like an even Safek, like we find regarding animals (Zevachim 73a).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> When it is found in a Nochri's hand, why don't we decree lest one take from Kavu'a, like we decreed regarding animals?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rosh):</span> Here, the Isur is known in its place. People know that an Isur Kavu'a is like an even Safek and that one store sells Neveilah. Therefore, they will not buy meat before verifying that it is Kosher. If Isur was mixed and we permit to take from what separates, people might take from the mixture itself. R. Tam did not make this distinction. When a wolf entered a herd and made two or three animals Tereifah (we do not know which animals were scratched by the wolf's venomous claws), he permitted animals that separated. He must distinguish other Isurim from Kodshim and Avodah Zarah. This is unreasonable.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 8:11):</span> If nine stores sell slaughtered meat and one sells Neveilah, and one bought from a store and does not know from which, the meat is forbidden. Every Isur Kavu'a is like an even Safek. If meat is found in the market, we follow the majority. Anything that separated is assumed to be from the majority. If the majority of sellers are Yisraelim, it is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Rashba says that we forbid an Isur Kavu'a when it is by itself. If it became mixed with a majority of Heter and it is not recognized, it is permitted, because it is a Sefek-Sefeka (two doubts). He permits even a piece that is Re'uyah Lehiskaved (important enough to be served to honor a guest).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (5):</span> The Rambam (16:10) holds like the Ri, who follows the majority to permit what separated from Kevi'us mid'Oraisa, even if we saw it separate. We decree only about Kevi'us mid'Rabanan, i.e. important things such as full creations that are never Batel mid'Rabanan. If we would permit something that separated from its Kevi'us, people would permit from the Kevi'us itself. R. Tam does not decree.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas ha'Rosh (20:17):</span> When a piece separated from the mixture in front of us, the Safek started in a place of Kevi'us. We have no source to decree when a piece separated before there was a Safek, e.g. one bought meat and later we heard that there was a Tereifah in the market.</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 110:3):</span> If nine stores sell slaughtered meat and one sells Neveilah and one bought from a store and does not know from which, the meat is forbidden. Every Isur Kavu'a is like an even Safek. Meat found in the market or in a Nochri's hand is permitted, for we follow the majority. Anything that separated is assumed to be from the majority.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chasav Kegon):</span> The Rashba says that when an Isur is Kavu'a in its place, e.g. one does not know whether the store in which he bought sells slaughtered or Neveilah meat, a piece is not Batel in the majority. This is even if it is not Re'uyah Lehiskaved. If the Isur was found in front of the stores, i.e. it was not taken from the place of Kevi'us, it is Batel even if it is Re'uyah Lehiskaved.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (14):</span> The Ro'oh says that if the Chazakah was that all 10 stores sell slaughtered meat, and after buying, one heard that one of the stores sells Neveilah, the meat is forbidden. This is unlike meat that separated, for the Safek is not due to (the meat) itself, rather, to the identity of the store. The Safek did not arise now. Rather, the Safek arose when he bought it, just we found out about it only now. The Rashba says that if one knows from which store he bought, and later he heard that a Tereifah animal was mixed with the Kosher ones in the market, even a Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved is permitted. The Safek is not about the store, only about whether the meat was from the Tereifah. Since he bought before *he* heard about the Tereifah, we say that the Safek came only later, so we follow the majority. However, the Ran (Chulin 33b DH Amar, citing Tosfos) says that an Isur is Kavu'a only if the Isur was known before he bought.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Pri Chodosh 13):</span> The Rashba holds like the Ran (even if he is unsure which store he bought from, it is permitted because the Safek arose only later).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (14):</span> The Tur holds like the Ran, and says that that the Rosh agrees. However, in Teshuvah 20:17, the Rosh permits when pieces were mixed and one bought before the Safek arose. It seems that he does not permit a Safek of stores.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (16):</span> If there was a Neveilah in one store and we do not know which store, even though this is an Isur Kavu'a, if meat separated not in front of us the Rosh forbids, lest one take from Kavu'a.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (18):</span> The Roke'ach says that if a child bought meat, it is as if a Nochri bought it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> This is Torah law. Chachamim forbade it even if all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Yisraelim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> See Siman 63. (There, the Rema permits in a case like this.) We say that it came from the majority when we did not see it separate. If we saw it separate, or we saw the Nochri buy it, it is as if the Yisrael himself took it from there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Source:</span> Rashba (Toras ha'Bayis 4:2 30a) and Rosh (20:17), cited in Beis Yosef DH u'Mah she'Chasav d'Kiven), based on Pesachim 9b.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) REDEEMING ANIMALS THAT ARE 'SAFEK TEREIFAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a Tereifah becomes mixed up with animals designated as Korbanos, all of the animals in the mixture must be put out to pasture until they become blemished, and then they are sold. For each animal which was designated as a Korban, one animal must be brought as a Korban with the money from the sale. Each Korban purchased should be as valuable as the most valuable animal of the lot.
</p><p>
The Gemara later (74b) asks, how can a Tereifah animal become mixed up, unidentifiably, with other animals? A Tereifah has an obvious sign of mortality, and thus it should be identifiable among other animals which are not Tereifos!
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes three opinions about the unrecognizable Tereifah of the Mishnah. Rebbi Yirmeyah says that the Mishnah's case is according to the view of Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that the offspring of a Tereifah also has the status of a Tereifah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yanai says that an animal which was punctured by a wolf and is a Tereifah became mixed with animals which were punctured by thorns and are not Tereifos. The puncture wounds look the same.
</p><p>
Reish Lakish says that the animal is a 'Nefulah,' an animal which suffered a fall, which is a Safek Tereifah and may not be offered as a Korban.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH uv'Tereifah) quotes <b>RABEINU EFRAIM</b> who questions the opinion of Rebbi Yirmeyah. The advantage of being able to redeem these animals is that the animals may be sold and become ordinary Chulin animals, instead of having to be left to die (as in the first case of the Mishnah). How, though, can these animals become ordinary Chulin animals? Since they are Safek Tereifos, they cannot be eaten anyway. The Mishnah cannot be teaching that the animals may be sold as food for Nochrim or for dogs, because there is a rule that Kodshim may not be redeemed for the sole purpose of feeding it to Nochrim or to dogs. Similarly, these animals may not be used for their shearings or any other product that they produce while alive, because Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are forbidden from being used for work or for their shearings.
</p><p>
Tosfos points out that this is not a question on the opinions of Safek Nefulah and Derusah (from a wolf), since there is a test which can be done after Shechitah to determine whether or not the animal is a Tereifah. (This is true according to the view of Tosfos; <b>RASHI</b> in Chulin 53b disagrees in the case of Derusah. See Tosfos to Chulin 53b, DH Derusah.) If the test shows that the animal is not a Tereifah, then it may be eaten. However, according to Rebbi Yirmeyah, who explains that the Mishnah refers to the offspring of a Tereifah, and there is no test which can permit the offspring of a Tereifah, why does the Mishnah say that the animals may be redeemed?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that Rebbi Yirmeyah may follow the opinion recorded in Bechoros (15b), that one indeed may redeem Kodshim in order to feed it to dogs.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the only situation in which one may not redeem Kodshim in order to feed it to dogs is where there is an intrinsic problem with the Kodshim. For example, it died without Shechitah, or it became a Tereifah. In contrast, where the animal of Kodshim itself is fine and the only reason why it cannot be offered as a Korban is because a Tereifah Chulin animal became mixed among the animals, one may redeem the Kodshim to feed it to dogs. Tosfos explains that this is based on a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of 'v'Achalta' -- 'and you will eat' (Devarim 12:15), from which the Gemara in Bechoros (15a) derives 'v'Achalta, v'Lo l'Kelavecha' -- 'and you will eat, but not [give it] to your dogs.'
</p><p>
The <b>KEREISI U'PLEISI</b> (57) asks, why are the other two opinions of the Gemara (cited by Tosfos) not problematic? If the question is only one of Safek Tereifah according to the opinions that the animal was a Nefulah or Derusah, all of the animals should simply be kept for twelve months, at which time any animal still alive will be declared not a Tereifah (since it did not die within twelve months)! Although the Gemara does not permit a definite Tereifah using this method, it does permit a Safek Derusah if it lives twelve months, according to the opinion 'Tereifah Einah Chayah' -- 'a Tereifah does not live [twelve months from the time it became a Tereifah].' The fact that the animal lived for twelve months proves that it was not a Tereifah.
</p><p>
The Kereisi u'Pleisi answers that Tosfos understands that once the other animals are forbidden due to the Safek Tereifah in their midst, the rule of 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachim' ('animals are pushed aside [from being used as a Korban]') applies, rendering them unfit to be offered as Korbanos (see 73b). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DEFINITION OF 'KOL SHE'DARKO LIMANOS'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the dispute about which type of Davar sheb'Minyan is not Batel -- that which is 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' or that which is 'Es she'Darko Limanos.' 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' refers to anything that is occasionally sold according to its exact number (and thus, according to this opinion, it is considered significant and does not become annulled when mixed with a larger amount). 'Es she'Darko Limanos' refers to anything that is <i>usually</i> sold according to its exact number (and thus, according to this opinion, it is considered significant and does not become annulled when mixed with a larger amount).
</p><p>
In his definition of 'Kol she'Darko Limanos,' <b>RASHI</b> writes that there are some people 'who are particular about the number' of items being sold, and 'they sell according to the exact number' of items. Why does Rashi mention both phrases, people who 'are particular about the number' and those who 'sell according to the exact number'?
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>TOSEFES KEDUSHAH</b> explains as follows. Rashi, at the end of his comment here, concludes that 'some people [who are not particular] will add an extra animal for free, or will sell the entire herd at once [without counting how many animals it contains].' Rashi's words imply that to be particular means that one <i>never</i> adds an extra item for free, and <i>never</i> sells the entire lot without counting how many items it contains. Accordingly, when Rashi writes that some people 'are particular about the number,' he means that they <i>never</i> add any item for free. When he writes that they 'sell according to the number,' he means that they do not make a bulk sale without counting the items.
</p><p>
Rashi's words have an important Halachic application. The <b>PISCHEI TESHUVAH</b> (YD 110:1) in the name of the <b>MINCHAS YAKOV</b> quotes the <b>TAZ</b> who says that in a situation where a great monetary loss is involved, one may be lenient and apply the principle of Bitul b'Rov in a case of a prohibited egg that became mixed with a large number of Kosher eggs.
</p><p>
The <b>TESHUVAH ME'AHAVAH</b> (1:133) and the <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> disagree with this ruling. They assert that the Taz is lenient only when the status of the egg is 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' -- some people are particular to sell them by the count, while others are not. The Taz means that one may rely on the view of Rebbi Yochanan, who rules that 'Kol she'Darko Limanos' is Batel b'Rov. Nowadays, however, no one sells eggs without counting them, and, therefore, eggs are in the category of 'Es she'Darko Limanos.' Hence, according to all opinions they are not Batel b'Rov.
</p><p>
The Teshuvah me'Ahavah nevertheless concludes that according to the words of Rashi here, there remain grounds to be lenient. Although eggs are always sold according to their count, 'in these countries an extra egg is given to the buyer, and therefore it has the status of something that is <i>not</i> 'Darko Limanos.''
</p><p>
The <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> cites the <b>SHACH HA'AROCH</b> on the Tur (YD 110) who understands Rashi's intention the same way. He says that this additional condition (that the item is not the type for which people add an extra one for the buyer) seems to be the subject of a doubt according to Rashi. Rashi in Beitzah (3b) writes that items that are sold according to number will always have the status of 'Darko Limanos.' However, Rashi here in Zevachim writes that even items that are sold by number are not considered 'Darko Limanos' if the seller adds an extra one for the buyer.
</p><p>
This Halachic application would be relevant today in places where eggs are not sold by the dozen (such as in egg-cartons that contain exactly twelve eggs). In most places, however, eggs are sold by the number, and thus a prohibited egg that became mixed with permitted eggs would not be Batel b'Rov. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> THAT ARE NEVER BATEL <span class='indexentry'>[Bitul b'Rov :Devarim sheb'Minyan]</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> Bundles of clover of Kilai ha'Kerem (other species planted with grape pits or near vines) must be burned;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	R. Meir says, if they became mixed with other bundles (of Heter), (and those became mixed with other bundles - some delete this from the text), all must be burned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	Chachamim say, if there is at least 200 times as much Heter as Isur, the Isur is Batel, and they are permitted;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	R. Meir says, everything that is normally counted is Mekadesh (forbids a mixture and is never Batel);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Chachamim say, only six things are Mekadesh - nuts of Parech, pomegranates of Badan, sealed barrels (of wine or oil), beet shoots, stalks of cabbage, and Yevanis gourds;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	R. Akiva adds a seventh thing that is Mekadesh - loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis (i.e. not of a professional baker);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	Some of these could be forbidden due to Orlah, and the others can be forbidden due to Kilai ha'Kerem.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> The text is 'R. Meir says, '*what* is normally counted';</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> The text is '*everything that* is normally counted.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 74a (Mishnah):</span> These are forbidden, and if they became mixed (b'Mino, i.e. with its own species, and the Isur is not recognizable), they forbid a mixture of any amount:</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Yayin Nesech, idolatry, hides with a hole (from which the heart was removed, an idolatrous practice), an ox sentenced to be stoned, a calf beheaded (when a murdered body is found), birds used to be Metaher a Metzora, a Nazir's hair, a firstborn donkey (before it is redeemed), meat cooked with milk, the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur, and Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If the Tana lists Devarim sheb'Minyan (things that are sold by number), he should also list pieces of a Neveilah. If he lists Isurei ha'Na'ah, he should also list Chametz during Pesach!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba):</span> The Tana lists only Devarim sheb'Minyan that are also Isurei ha'Na'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span>	The Mishnah says '*these* are forbidden' to exclude Devarim sheb'Minyan that are not Isurei ha'Na'ah, and Isurei ha'Na'ah that are not Devarim sheb'Minyan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 99b (Mishnah):</span> If a Gid ha'Nasheh or a piece of Neveilah was cooked with other Gidim (sinews) or pieces, if we cannot recognize the Gid ha'Nasheh or Neveilah, they are all forbidden.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Gid ha'Nasheh or Neveilah should be Batel in the majority!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> A Gid ha'Nasheh is a Briyah (complete creation), so it is never Batel. A piece of Neveilah is a Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved (a piece proper to honor guests with). It is important, so it is never Batel.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Yevamos 81b DH Parech):</span> Rashi says that Parech is a place. The Ri says that Parech nuts are so soft that they are Nifrachim (crushed) by themselves.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Chulin 35b):</span> A Gid is not Batel because it is a Briyah. A piece of Neveilah is not Batel because it is fitting to honor guests.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (36b DH v'Garsinan):</span> The Gemara says according to R. Meir that Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved is not Batel. Even though it is not Devar sheb'Minyan, it is important. However, Chachamim disagree, for they say that only six things are not Batel. It is not better than bundles of clover, which Chachamim say are Batel. The Halachah follows R. Meir, for the Stam Mishnah is like him, and R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue according to him. However, the Rambam rules like Chachamim. He holds that Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved is like one of the six things.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 16:3):</span> Something important forbids any amount b'Mino. There are seven such things: nuts of Parech, pomegranates of Badan, sealed barrels, beet shoots, large stalks of cabbage, Greek gourds, and loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (9):</span> It seems to me that anything that is important to people in a place, such as nuts of Parech or pomegranates of Badan in Eretz Yisrael at those times, forbids a mixture of any size. Chachamim listed those that forbid any amount in every place. The same applies to everything similar in other places. It is clear that these Isurim are mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Avodah Zarah 5:30):</span> The Tana lists only Devarim sheb'Minyan that are Isurei ha'Na'ah. Rashi says that even though a piece of Neveilah is Devar sheb'Minyan, since it is not Isurei Hana'ah it is Batel in a majority. Rashi holds that our Tana argues with the Tana in Chulin who says that Gid ha'Nasheh and Neveilah forbid any amount because a Briyah and Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved are not Betelim. One can explain differently, that the Tana agrees that Devar sheb'Minyan is forbidden even if it is not Isurei ha'Na'ah, just he does not list it. Even though Chametz b'Pesach is Asur b'Hana'ah, if it is not Devar sheb'Minyan, it can be Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Pilpulei Charifta 300):</span> This is unlike what the Rosh said above, that the Tana lists only what has both properties, but he forbids even without both!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (35):</span> Mid'Oraisa, an Isur is Batel in a majority of Heter even if it is important. Mid'Rabanan it is not Batel.</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 110:1):</span> Something important forbids any amount Min b'Mino. There are seven such things: nuts of Parech, pomegranates of Badan, sealed barrels, beet shoots, large stalks of cabbage, Greek gourds and loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis. Other things are Batel in the appropriate Shi'ur, even if they are normally counted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (4,6):</span> Only big barrels are important. Small barrels are Batel in a majority (Rema 134:2). Obviously, where bakers' loaves are important like those of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, they are not Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Taz 1):</span> Sha'arei Dura and the Maharshal rule like Reish Lakish. The Shulchan Aruch itself (86:3) says that eggs are not Batel, unlike its ruling here! Since this is mid'Rabanan, one may rely on the lenient opinion.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (1):</span> The Mordechai says that intestines are Batel even though they are sold only by number, because they are eaten only when filled (with something else).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that anything b'Minyan, i.e. it is always counted, is not Batel. This is our custom.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bedek ha'Bayis (DH veha'Rishon):</span> This opinion seems better, but since this is a mid'Rabanan matter, we are lenient like the Rambam.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Chen Kasav):</span> Many say that the Halachah follows R. Meir, for R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue according to him. The Ritzva says that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan. Eggs can be Batel, because sometimes they are sold by estimation. Sefer ha'Terumah disagrees.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (ibid.):</span> The Rambam does not learn from the Amora'im's argument that the Halachah follows R. Meir against Chachamim and R. Akiva. The Rambam rules like R. Akiva. He also rules that Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskaved, a Briyah and a living being are not Batel. The Rambam can explain why the Mishnah did not mention these: it lists the seven to be examples of important things that are not Batel. The seven do not exclude everything else.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (2):</span> The Rambam rules like R. Akiva because a Stam Mishnah like R. Akiva follows the Mishnah in which there is an argument.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> If R. Akiva (and Chachamim) agree that similarly important things are not Batel, why do they argue about whether there are six or seven? Also, 'there are only six' implies that there are no others!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Kesef Mishneh):</span> R. Meir discussed things that grow from the ground. Chachamim say that there are only six such things that are not Batel. R. Akiva holds that loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis are just as important as the six. Alternatively, even though they are less important, since they are more important than everything else that grows, they forbid any amount.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (9):</span> The custom is to be stringent about anything sometimes sold by number. Nowadays everyone sells eggs by number, so one must be stringent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> Anything that is important to people in a place, such as nuts of Parech in Eretz Yisrael at those times, forbids a mixture of any size. Chachamim listed those that forbid any amount in every place. The same applies to everything similar in other places.</p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) LIKE WHICH TANA DOES THE HALACHAH FOLLOW WITH REGARD TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A 'DAVAR CHASHUV'?</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara cites several opinions among the Tana'im regarding what type of prohibited item does not become Batel in a mixture because of its importance. According to Rebbi Yochanan, there are four opinions: Rebbi Meir maintains that an item that is always sold by count is not Batel. The Chachamim maintain that only six specific items do not become Batel. Rebbi Akiva adds a seventh item. Rebbi Yehudah (73a), explaining the view of Rebbi Yehoshua, maintains that any item that is sometimes counted is not Batel. Rebbi Yochanan understands that according to Rebbi Meir, an item must <i>always</i> be sold by count in order to be considered important; if the item is only occasionally sold by count, then it is not considered important and is Batel b'Rov. Reish Lakish argues and says that both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah maintain that an item that is <i>sometimes</i> sold by count is not Batel.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 16:3) rules like the Chachamim, in accordance with the principle that we follow the view of the majority opinion ('Yachid v'Rabim, Halachah k'Rabim'). (With regard to whether six items or seven items are not Batel, the Rambam rules like Rebbi Akiva and not like the Chachamim, because a Stam Mishnah in Terumos follows the view of Rebbi Akiva, as the <b>CHAZON ISH</b> in Orlah (#10) writes in the name of the Yerushalmi.)
</p><p>
However, many Rishonim disagree with the Rambam's ruling. The <b>TUR</b> (YD 110) quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who rules like Rebbi Meir, according to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of Rebbi Meir's view. Why, though, does he not rule like the majority, like the Chachamim? The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> answers that since Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the intention of Rebbi Meir, it must be that the Halachah follows his opinion, because otherwise they would not discuss his opinion. When the Amora'im deal specifically with the view of one Tana, it may be assumed that the Halachah follows that Tana, even if he argues with the majority. Why, then, does the Rambam rule like the Chachamim?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> (Chulin 7:70) implies that the Halachah does not necessarily follow the view of a certain Tana just because the Amora'im discuss his view. Only when the Amora'im disagree about very detailed points in the view of that Tana may we assume that the Halachah follows that Tana.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> refutes the claim of the Beis Yosef, that the Gemara records the discussion of Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in order to show that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are not discussing the view of Rebbi Meir because they maintain that the Halachah follows his view, but rather because they want to ascertain whether or not the Mishnah can be understood in accordance with his view.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV YEHONASAN EIBESHITZ</b> in <b>MATEH YEHONASAN</b> (YD 110) explains the Rambam as follows. Even the Chachamim agree that an item of importance is not Batel. However, they maintain that the fact that an item is sold by count is not evidence of its importance, because perhaps it is simply more convenient to sell it that way. However, when most items in a certain category, such as nuts, are sold in sacks, while a specific item in that category, such as Egozei Perach, are sold by number, that shows that the specific item is a Davar Chashuv. This is the case with all of the specific items that the Chachamim enumerate.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish may also be arguing about the view of the Chachamim, and not just about the view of Rebbi Meir. What do the Chachamim maintain in a case in which most apples are sold by the box, but Egyptian apples are sold <i>occasionally</i> by the number? Rebbi Yochanan will say that a prohibited apple in a mixture is Batel, while Reish Lakish will say that it is not Batel. Since Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about the view of the Chachamim as well, there is no proof that they rule like Rebbi Meir.
</p><p>
This approach answers another difficult point in the Rambam. The Rambam adds (16:9), 'It appears to me that any item that is considered important by the residents of a certain place... prohibits a mixture in any amount.' If the Rambam rules like the Chachamim, how can he say that this Halachah applies to all items that are considered important in a given place? The Chachamim specifically state that these six items (in their list) '<i>alone</i>' are not Batel!
</p><p>
The answer might be that if Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish indeed argue about what the Chachamim rule with regard to an item that is occasionally sold by count, then it must be that the Chachamim list these six items only as examples. That is, when they mention that these items 'alone' are not Batel, they mean that of all of the different species of nuts, for example, <i>only</i> Egozei Perach are sold by count and are not Batel. There may be, however, other categories of items which contain a specific species which is Chashuv and is not Batel. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'KOL KAVU'A K'MECHETZEH AL MECHETZEH DAMI'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a number of important principles with regard to mixtures of permitted and forbidden items. Two of these principles are 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish,' and 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami.'
</p><p>
The rule of 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' teaches that when there is a doubt about the source of a certain item (such as from where it came or to which group it belongs), the item is assumed to have come from the majority group. This rule differs slightly from the general rule of 'Bitul b'Rov.' Although both rules are derived from the verse, 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' (Shemos 23:2), the rule of 'Bitul b'Rov' teaches that the Isur becomes Batel in a majority of Heter, such that the Isur is entirely annulled (see following Insight). 'Kol d'Parish,' in contrast, teaches that when one item became <i>separated</i> from the rest, one may assume that the item in doubt came from the group of permitted items, and the prohibited item is still in its original place. For example, if a piece of meat is found lying on the street (or in the hands of a Nochri in the street), and most of the meat in the town is Kosher, one may safely assume that the meat in doubt is Kosher, while the prohibited meat is still in its place of origin (the non-Kosher shop).
</p><p>
(That there is a difference between 'Bitul b'Rov' and 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish' is evident from the fact that the Gemara earlier (71a) asks that the prohibited animal should be Batel b'Rov when it becomes mixed with the permitted animals. The Gemara answers that it is not Batel, either because objects sold by count are not Batel (Reish Lakish), or because living animals are not Batel (Rav Ashi). However, the Gemara later (73b; see following Insight) asks that the animals in the herd should be spread apart from each other, and then one at a time should be taken out, so that each one will become permitted based on 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish.' If this rule is the same as that of Bitul b'Rov, then what is the Gemara's question? The Gemara earlier teaches that Bitul b'Rov does not apply to a living animal! The answer is that 'Kol d'Parish' differs from Bitul b'Rov in that it teaches not that the item of Isur becomes Batel, but that the item in question becomes an item of Heter, and that the item of Isur was left behind in its original place.)
</p><p>
The rule of 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami' applies when the status of the item is in doubt while it is still 'in its place' ('Kavu'a'; that is, it was not separated from the other items of its kind). In a case of 'Kavu'a,' the Torah teaches that we do not follow the majority. Instead, we remain in doubt as to the status of the item. For example, if a person buys meat and then forgets whether he bought it at a Kosher store or at a non-Kosher store, we cannot assume that the meat is Kosher just because most of the stores in the town are Kosher, since we are questioning its status while it is still in its proper place (the store) before it was separated from the other pieces of meat in the store. Accordingly, if a person eats a piece of meat in such a situation, he is considered to have eaten a Safek Isur and may be obligated to bring a Korban Asham Taluy.
</p><p>
The rule of 'Kol Kavu'a' is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, derived from a case in which a Jew throws a rock into a crowd of people comprised of nine Jews and one Nochri, intending to kill one of them. The Torah teaches that in such a case, the perpetrator is considered as though he did not know whom he was killing (and is exempt from punishment), even though most of the people in the crowd were Jews. This is because the item in doubt (i.e. whom he intended to kill) is in its place of origin at the time of the doubt.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> (in <b>KOVETZ BI'URIM</b> on <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> #41) asks that in the case of a piece of meat that separated from nine other pieces of meat ('Kol d'Parish'), how can we assume that this piece came from the majority? Even in such a case, the rule of 'Kavu'a' should dictate that there will be no Bitul! Since the other nine pieces are left in their original location, they are all in question because of 'Kol Kavu'a, k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami.' It should be as if there is no Rov of permitted pieces among the nine! Consequently, the piece of meat that became separated from the others should be viewed as having come from nine <i>questionable</i> pieces, and not from a Rov of permitted pieces!
</p><p>
ANSWER: <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd quotes <b>RAV MOSHE SOLOVEITCHIK</b> who answers that the principle of 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami' does not mean that there is no Halachic Rov in the original location of the items. Rather, there is a Rov, but we do not <i>follow</i> the Rov to resolve the doubt; the Torah does not apply its rule of 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' in such a case. Thus, it is considered as though there are an equal number of permitted items as prohibited items ('k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh'). In contrast, with regard to the item which was removed and is not in its place of origin, we <i>may</i> rely on the Rov; in such a case, the verse of 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' teaches that the item in question fell from the Rov and thus is permitted. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CAN BITUL GIVE ATTRIBUTES? <span class='indexentry'>[Bitul b'Rov]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> (When a Pasul was mixed with Kosher Korbanos, why can't we offer them?) We should force them to go away (so animals will separate from the mixture elsewhere, not in front of us), and each that separates is (presumably) from the majority!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rava):</span> Chachamim decreed not to do so, lest someone take in a way (i.e. from the mixture) that is considered Kavu'a.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 88b Version #1 (Mishnah):</span> If Reuven forgot which Korban Pesach was for him, he is exempt from Pesach Sheni.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Abaye):</span> This is only if he forgot after Zerikah, for at the time of Zerikah there was potential for him to eat from it, but not if he forgot before Zerikah, for at the time of Zerikah he could not eat from it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #2 (Beraisa):</span> If the skins of the Pesachim of five groups became mixed, and a wart was found on one of them, all of the Pesachim are burned, and the groups are exempt from Pesach Sheni.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Abaye):</span> This is only if the skins became mixed after Zerikah, for at the time of Zerikah there was potential (to identify the Pasul Korban, and for the other groups) to eat from it. If they became mixed before Zerikah, they bring Pesach Sheni (for at the time of Zerikah no group could eat from it).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	In version #1, (even though both Korbanos are Kesherim,) Abaye requires that he remembered at the time of Zerikah. All the more so, he requires that the skins were not mixed before Zerikah;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	In Version #2, he is stringent if the skins were mixed before Zerikah, but lenient if Reuven forgot before Zerikah. Since both Korbanos are Kesherim, and if he will remember later they may be eaten, and it is clear to Hash-m (i.e. there is no intrinsic Pesul), they are Yotzei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 42b (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah):</span> When making Techeiles dye, to see if it finished cooking, we put some in an eggshell, and dye a tuft of wool in it. We spill out the dye in the eggshell and burn the tuft.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> A dyed sample is Pasul (for Techeiles) because the dying must be Lishmah. If the sample dye would be returned to the pot, it would disqualify all the dye inside.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sanhedrin 79b (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</span> If people sentenced to be stoned became mixed with people sentenced to be burned, we stone them, for this is more lenient;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span>	Chachamim say, we burn them, for this is more lenient.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Metzia 6b (Mishnah):</span> If an animal already counted (during tithing) jumped back into the pen and was mixed with the uncounted animals, they are all exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span>	This shows that a Safek is not tithed.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (71a Sof DH Afilu):</span> When people sentenced to be stoned were mixed with people sentenced to be burned, we give the more lenient death. Rabbeinu Yitzchak questioned this, for even in capital cases we follow the majority! We do not exempt a murderer due to the possibility that there already was a hole where he stabbed the victim! R. Tam answered since in any case we kill him, we do not follow the majority to be stringent. Alternatively, we do not follow the majority to Vadai obligate stoning him. If one murderer who was not sentenced to death were mixed with murderers who were sentenced, all are exempt. We do not follow the majority to do something that is Vadai Sheker, i.e. to kill all of them. This is unlike one who Vadai killed, but we are unsure if he killed a healthy person or a Tereifah. Also, we can say that it (the case of a murderer not sentenced who got mixed with sentenced murderers) is a Safek Kavu'a, so it is considered an even Safek (without a majority). He is exempt, for we are lenient about Safek Nefashos. We do not make them go away so that one will separate from the mixture (in our absence, not in the place of Kevi'us) and say that he came from the majority, for we may not do so to be stringent on him. Also, we decree not to do so, lest one take directly from the mixture. Rashi (Menachos 42b DH u'Te'imah) says that if test dye was poured back into the pot, it disqualifies the entire pot. This is because Bitul cannot make it considered Lishmah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> Even though the Isur (the murderer not sentenced) is not recognizable, Bitul does not apply to people, therefore it is like an Isur Kavu'a.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ha'aros on Shirei Berachah (YD 279:3):</span> Bitul makes Isur as if it is not, but we have no source that Bitul b'Rov helps for Mitzvos to make something considered Lishmah. The Rashba says that when dry things mix, Bitul b'Rov teaches that what is in front of us is Heter. Therefore, one person may eat all three pieces one after the other. If Sifrei Torah became mixed, Bitul b'Rov can teach that any one is Kosher, but not that all are Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (73b DH Nichbeshinhu):</span> The Gemara suggested that we force them to wander, so they will not be in the place of Kevi'us.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (73b DH v'Nichbeshinhu):</span> If one separates in our absence, not in the place of Kevi'us, we do not consider it like a Safek Kavu'a, i.e. an even Safek. Rather, we follow the majority.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shitah Mekubetzes (73b:1):</span> The Gemara suggested that we turn away, so we will not see when one of them separates, and then it is not considered Kavu'a. The Sar mi'Kutzi says that Isur Kavu'a is only when it is known in its place. Here it is not; because living animals are important, we consider it like a known Isur. Therefore, even if one separates in front of us, since they left their Kevi'us, we can say that it came from the majority.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Tosfos 6b DH Kafatz):</span> When one of the animals already counted jumped back into the pen, it should be Batel in the majority (of animals that were not yet counted), and all should be liable to be tithed! It is only mid'Rabanan that something that is counted is not Batel. Kavu'a applies only when the Isur and Heter are known, but one does not know from which he took, e.g. nine stores (sell Kosher meat, and one sells Neveilah). I explained in Chulin that it is not considered a Briyah (which is never Batel). Do not say that only one animal remained in the pen (so there is no majority), for 'amidst them' connotes unlike this.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Oneg Yom Tov (4):</span> I am unsure whether Bitul helps for something Pasul because an action was not done. E.g. if Matzah was not baked Lishmah, Bitul in a majority of Matzos Lishmah will not give it the attribute of Lishmah. Therefore, all the mixed Matzos are Pasul for the Mitzvah. Chavas Da'as (101) asked from five Korbanos Pesach that were mixed, and a wart was found on one. None may be eaten. Why don't we follow the majority, and permit all to be eaten? Bitul removes an Isur, but it does not make something considered a Kosher Korban. Since the wart disqualifies, the Shechitah and Zerikah needed to make a Kosher Korban were not done.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Achiezer (YD 15):</span> Kehilas Yakov, Chavas Da'as (101) and Beis Efrayim (YD 33) asked why the Pasul Korban Pesach is not Batel in the Kosher ones. Why must they bring Pesach Sheni if they became mixed before Zerikah? Also, what is the Kal va'Chomer from the Mishnah to the Beraisa? In the Mishnah, only two Korbanos were mixed, so one may not eat them. In the Beraisa, five were mixed, so the majority permits eating it! Some answer that since only the owners of a Pesach may eat it, each Korban is forbidden to most of them. Even according to the opinion that Isurim are Mevatel each other, this is only to exempt from lashes, but surely one may not eat it! I say that we are stringent even if one recognizes his Korban Pesach, but the skins are mixed, and we do not know which had the wart. Each should be able to say that his came from the majority. Even though it is Kavu'a, R. Shimshon holds that a Kavu'a Isur that is not Nikar is forbidden only mid'Rabanan even when Bitul does not apply. (Eglah Arufah, i.e. a calf to atone for a found murdered corpse, forbids farming the Nachal (valley or river) where it is beheaded.) This explains why we may farm a Nachal without concern lest an Eglah Arufah was beheaded there, even though Bitul does not apply to land. (The Torah permits, and Chachamim did not forbid.) The Oneg Yom Tov's answer explains why it is not considered a Kosher Korban, but not why they may not eat it. I explain that the question was because it is Kavu'a that is not Nikar. Bitul does not give attributes of the Mevatel only when we seek to permit due to Bitul. When we say 'what separates comes from the majority', it attains the attributes of the Mevatel. A case occurred in which one of the people arranging the dough was a Nochri, who does not work l'Shem Matzas Mitzvah. I said that regarding the buyer, we assume that the Matzah came from the majority, which were made Lishmah. Tosfos (Bava Metzia 6b) proves this. He asked that when one of the animals already counted returned to the pen, it should be Batel among the animals that were not yet counted. How can Bitul b'Rov give it the attribute of being liable to be tithed?! I say that Tosfos asked that we should make them go away so that animals will separate from the mixture, and say that what separates comes from the majority. Then, it attains the attributes of the Mevatel. This is like Tosfos and the Shitah Mekubetzes in Zevachim. Therefore, even if the Pesachim became mixed before Zerikah, and they were Kevu'im at the time, we can say that each came from the majority, and we can offer it. Even if we will say that this is like one who asks about himself and his friend (we know that one of them became Tamei in Reshus ha'Rabim; normally we are lenient about such a Safek, but we cannot be Metaher both of them), this is a stringency mid'Rabanan. The Torah permits such a case. Further, it seems that this stringency does not apply when there is a majority. We permit a majority even if later he will eat the minority (in spite of the contradiction). Perhaps Isurim are not Mevatel each other only regarding Isurim like Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, which are forbidden to everyone. Here, a Pesach forbidden to one (who has no share in it) is permitted to others (its owners). If one vowed from a food and it became mixed with Chelev and blood, surely the food helps to be Mevatel them, for the food is permitted to others. Automatically, it is Batel also for the one who vowed. If he ate the food, he is exempt for Chelev and blood. Therefore, it is as if the blemished Pesach is mixed with Heter. There is no source to say that it should not be Batel. Isurim are not Mevatel each other to permit eating because each bit has some Isur on it. This does not apply here.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) PERMITTING THE ANIMALS BY MAKING THEM SPREAD APART</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah (70b-71a) teaches that when an animal that may not be offered as a Korban becomes mixed with other animals that are designated as Korbanos, the prohibited animal does not become Batel in the majority (Rov) of permitted animals. The Gemara (73a) says that taking one animal at a time from the herd does not permit it based on the principle of 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish,' because taking one animal from the herd constitutes taking it from its place of origin where the doubt arose ('Kavu'a'), and thus the principle of 'Kol Kavu'a k'Mechetzeh Al Mechetzeh Dami' applies and prohibits it. The Gemara here (73b) suggests that the animals should be spread apart from each other, thereby leaving their place of origin and enabling one animal to be taken at a time, so that it becomes permitted to be offered as a Korban based on 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish.'
</p><p>
Rava answers that the animals may not be permitted with this method, because there is a concern that a number of Kohanim will take a majority of the animals that were in the herd, slaughter them, and then offer their blood and Eimurim at the same time. Consequently, a Rov of the animals that were in doubt will be offered at the same time, in which case it is assumed that the prohibited animal is in the Rov that is being offered.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this answer. How can it be that once each animal became permitted (since each one left its place of 'Kavu'a' separately, and became permitted because it was 'me'Ruba Parish'), its blood in the container should become prohibited? Once each animal became permitted because of Rov, it should be permitted to offer <i>all</i> of them together!
</p><p>
What is the Gemara's question on Rava's answer? The fact that each animal is considered to have come from the Rov and is permitted does not eradicate the Isur of the animal that was mixed in the herd. That animal is still Asur and still exists somewhere. The principle of 'me'Ruba Parish' merely permits one to take one animal at a time, apply the rule of Rov to it, and assume that it is not the prohibited animal. Offering all (or a Rov) of the animals simultaneously should not be permitted, since the animal that is prohibited is still present.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#3) proves from the Gemara here that if an item of Isur becomes Batel in a Rov of permitted items, one indeed is permitted to eat <i>all</i> of the items at once. This is also the opinion of the <b>ROSH</b> in Chulin (7:37), which the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 109:1) follows. The Rosh explains that the Isur indeed turns into Heter due to the Rov, and thus there is no need to attempt to evade the Isur.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b>, on the other hand, maintains that one may not eat the entire mixture at one time, because the mixture is viewed as still containing the Isur, and by eating all of it one definitely eats an item of Isur. One may eat some of the mixture, because it is assumed that the part that is being eaten now is not the Isur.
</p><p>
How does the Rashba understand the Gemara here, which implies that the Isur is completely annulled?
</p><p>
The <b>YOSEF DA'AS</b> offers a simple answer. The Gemara here only permits offering <i>most</i> (Rov) of the animals at the same time, but not <i>all</i> of them. It is permitted to offer most of the animals at one time because each animal already was presumed permitted by itself because of 'Kol d'Parish, me'Ruba Parish.' Moreover, it may be assumed that the prohibited animal is not among the ones being offered now.
</p><p>
The way in which the Acharonim explain the Rashba's intention provides additional grounds for leniency. The Rashba agrees that mid'Oraisa the Isur is entirely Batel and the entire mixture may be eaten at once; the Rabanan, however, prohibited it, since it <i>appears</i> as though one is eating Isur. In this case, when only a Rov, and not all, of the animals are being offered, this Isur d'Rabanan does not apply. (See also <b>CHEMDAS DANIEL</b>.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) KILLING ALL OF THE ANIMALS IN THE HERD</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah (70b) discusses the law in a case in which an ox that was sentenced to death became mixed with a group of animals that were set aside as Korbanos. The Mishnah states that 'they all must die.' The Gemara explains that an animal is an item that is intrinsically significant ('Chashuv') and therefore is not Batel in a mixture.
</p><p>
The Gemara presents a similar ruling in a case of a ring used for Avodah Zarah that became mixed with other, permitted rings. All of the rings in the mixture become prohibited. Rav, however, rules that if one of the rings in the mixture falls into the sea, the rest of the rings become permitted. The reasoning for this is that all of the rings in the mixture are now only a 'Safek Isur' (since it is possible that the ring that fell into the sea was the ring of Avodah Zarah), and a 'Safek Isur' is Batel in the mixture, even if it is a Davar Chashuv.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask that Rav's ruling seems to contradict the Mishnah. The Mishnah (70b) says that all of the animals must be put to death. Why must they all be put to death? Once the <i>first</i> animal is killed, all of the others become a 'Safek Isur' which is Batel in the mixture, and thus they should be permitted!
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RIM</b> answers that in the case of Rav, there was never a ruling that all of the rings are intrinsically forbidden. The reason why one may not use any of them is that he might end up using the forbidden one; the status of the mixture remains, however, as Heter mixed with Isur. Therefore, if one ring falls away, the status of the mixture becomes Heter with a Safek Isur mixed with it, in which case the Heter of Bitul applies.
</p><p>
In the case of the Mishnah, the prohibited item that became mixed with permitted items is an animal that is Chayav Sekilah (see Sanhedrin 80a). Accordingly, the verdict of Sekilah must be applied to all of them.  We cannot issue a ruling to permit all of the other animals in the herd through Bitul by removing (i.e. killing) one of them, because doing so would constitute deliberately causing an Isur to become annulled, and it is forbidden to deliberately cause an Isur to become annulled ('Ein Mevatlin Isur l'Chatchilah'). Therefore, the ruling is that all of them must be killed, and this ruling cannot be altered after one of the animals has been killed (and the others left in the herd are all only a Safek Isur). The verdict of Beis Din  that all of them are Chayav Sekilah must be fulfilled. This is why the Mishnah does not contradict the ruling of Rav. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A 'SFEK SFEIKA' IN THE CASE OF AN 'ISUR' THAT IS NOT 'BATEL'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the question of whether a secondary mixture (a Sfek Sfeika) with an item of Isur which normally is not Batel in a large amount of Heter is permitted or not. The Gemara suggests that this is the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa. The Beraisa discusses a case of Rimonei Badan (one of the six items listed earlier (72b) which are not Batel even in a large amount of Heter) of Orlah or Terumah which fell into ten thousand permitted Rimonim, and then one Rimon from that mixture fell into another group of ten thousand permitted Rimonim. Rebbi Yehudah says that <i>all</i> of the mixtures are forbidden, even the second mixture. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon that only the original mixture (the first ten thousand Rimonim into which the original Isur fell) is prohibited. If, however, one Rimon from that mixture fell into three other permitted Rimonim, and then one Rimon fell from those four into another group of Rimonim, the third group is permitted because of a Sfek Sfeika: perhaps the one that fell from the ten thousand was not the Isur, and even if it was, perhaps the one that fell from the second group was not the Isur.
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Shimon need to mention a <i>third</i> step of one Rimon that falls from the second group of Rimonim? He still could teach his law of Sfek Sfeika in the case in which one Rimon fell out of the first group into a second group; each Rimon in that second group is permitted because of a Sfek Sfeika!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Piresh) and the <b>ROSH</b> (Chulin 7:37) explain that a third step is mentioned in order to show that there is a difference between the third group and the second group. The three Rimonim in the second group may <i>not</i> be eaten all at once, but only one at a time. The Rimonim in the third group, on the other hand, may be eaten all at once. The reason for this difference is that the second mixture is permitted because of a Sfek Sfeika that perhaps the one that fell from the ten thousand was not the Isur, and even if it was, perhaps the one that one is eating now is not the Isur. The second Safek of this Sfek Sfeika will not exist if one eats all of the Rimonim in the second group at once, because one definitely will be eating the Rimon that fell from the first mixture (which has only one Safek). The Rimonim in the third mixture, however, may be eaten all at once, because it has a different Sfek Sfeika: perhaps the one that fell from the ten thousand was not the Isur, and even if it was, perhaps the one that fell from the second group was not the Isur. Thus, there are two Sfeikos that say that the Rimon that fell into the third mixture is not the Rimon of Isur.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Rebbi Shimon) writes that when one Rimon from the mixture falls into three other permitted Rimonim and then one Rimon from those four falls out, the Sfek Sfeika permits the three remaining Rimonim to be eaten. Rashi clearly requires that one of the Rimonim in the second mixture fall out of the mixture in order to permit the Rimonim of that group to be eaten. Rashi follows his own view expressed in Avodah Zarah (74a), that in order to permit an Isur in a mixture, one must first throw out one of the items. Here, too, in order for the Sfek Sfeika to permit the Rimonim in the second mixture, one of the Rimonim first must be removed from the mixture (<b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> YD 110:10). This is why Rebbi Shimon mentions the third step.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:10) maintains that <i>only</i> the third mixture is permitted, like the straightforward reading of the Beraisa. He maintains that there is no valid Sfek Sfeika to permit the Rimonim of the second mixture.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 7:10) rules that even the second mixture is permitted. However, elsewhere (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 16:10), when the Rambam discusses a Davar Chashuv which is not Batel b'Rov, he rules that only the third mixture is considered a Sfek Sfeika, as the Ra'avad rules.
</p><p>
The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> understands this to be a contradiction in the Rambam. He therefore rules in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 140) that only the third mixture is permitted, and not the second mixture.
</p><p>
The <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> (YD 110:10) reconciles the two contradictory rulings of the Rambam as follows. When the Gemara teaches that a ring of Avodah Zarah is not Batel b'Rov, the Gemara does not mean that it is so important that it is not Batel. Rather, it is a stringency, a Chumra, in the laws of Avodah Zarah that an item that is a Safek Avodah Zarah remains Asur. If, however, an additional Safek is involved, such as a second mixture, then the mixture is permitted because a <i>Sfek Sfeika</i> of Avodah Zarah is Mutar; the stringency of 'Safek Avodah Zarah Asur' does not extend to a Sfek Sfeika. In contrast, when the reason why an item is not Batel b'Rov is because of its importance (it is a 'Davar Chashuv'), the Chachamim decreed that the first mixture into which it falls is Asur because it is considered a <i>Vadai</i> Isur. The Chachamim view it as though the Davar Chashuv stands by itself and is not mixed with the other pieces of Heter. Only when one item from the first mixture falls into a second mixture is there a Safek whether or not the Davar Chashuv is in the second mixture. Since there is only a single Safek, the Davar Chashuv is not Batel b'Rov. Only when one item from the second mixture falls into a third mixture are the items in that mixture permitted, because now it is considered a Sfek Sfeika. Accordingly, with regard to Avodah Zarah, the Rambam rules that a ring of Avodah Zarah (which is not a Davar Chashuv) is Batel in the second mixture. In contrast, in Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros the Rambam rules that a Davar Chashuv becomes permitted only in a third mixture. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CAN A RECOGNIZABLE ISUR BE BATEL? <span class='indexentry'>[Bitul b'Rov :Nikar]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Granted, the (other) Isurim of our Mishnah (an animal had bestiality.,..) are not recognizable. What is the case of Treifah?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If it is recognizably Treifah, we can remove it and offer the others. If it is not recognizably Treifah, how do we know that a Treifah is among them?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sukah 9b (Mishnah):</span> If one draped a vine over a Sukah, it is Pasul. If there was more Sechach than vines or if he cut them, it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	9b - Question:</span> If he did not do Chavatah, why it is Kosher? Pasul Sechach joins with Kosher Sechach! (Chavatah means separating the attached Sechach from the Kosher Sechach, cutting what was attached, lowering the vine and mixing it with the Kosher Sechach, or knocking the leaves off the vines.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We must say that he did Chavatah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 25b (Beraisa):</span> A Ba'al Mum forbids any quantity (that it is mixed with);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	R. Yosi says, one checks.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	This cannot mean to check which is the Ba'al Mum and to remove it. The first Tana would not disagree!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Makos 16b (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</span> If one ground up nine ants and completed a k'Zayis with an ant that is Chai, he is lashed for eating a k'Zayis of Neveilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Yosef):</span> The same applies if one minced ant and a Chai ant comprised a k'Zayis.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	They do not argue. Rabah discusses small ants, and Rav Yosef discusses very big ants.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Sukah 6a):</span> The Gemara established our Mishnah to be when he did Chavatah. If not, Pasul Sechach joins with Kosher Sechach, and it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Sukah 5:13):</span> If one combined Kosher and Pasul Sechach, even if the majority is Kosher it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (16):</span> If one put Kosher and Pasul Sechach next to each other, if there is more Kosher Sechach it is Kosher. If there is exactly the same of both it is Pasul, because Pasul Sechach is like Parutz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishnah:</span> It is as if the Pasul Sechach is not there, therefore we need a majority of Kosher Sechach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Chulin 8:20):</span> One piece of Isur is Batel in two pieces of Heter when they are mixed and the Isur is not Nikar. Bitul does not apply when the Isur is Nikar.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Sukah 1:14):</span> Rashi says that 'Chavtan' means that he lowered the vine and mixed it with the Kosher Sechach. The vine is Batel in a majority of Kosher Sechach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Sukah 734):</span> R. Shimshon explains that Sechach under the tree is Pasul. Therefore, even though there is mostly shade, the Gemara asked that Pasul Sechach (what is under the tree) joins with Kosher Sechach. When Chavtan, the branches do not disqualify the Sukah, for they are the minority (and are mixed with the Sechach), like one who put Kosher Sechach in between metal poles.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (735):</span> Why are we concerned for an upper Sukah if the lower Sukah has more shade than sun? This is good according to R. Shimshon. Pasul Sechach disqualifies Sechach below it. If the top Sukah is Kosher, the Sechach below it becomes Pasul and Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Ovadya mi'Bartenura (Shekalim 1:1 DH v'Al):</span> Beis Din announces about Kil'ayim, that people diminish other species (mixed with seeds) to less than one part in 24. Raboseinu explain that after it grows, even if 1 part in 1000 was mixed in, everything must be uprooted. Bitul does not apply when two permitted species are mixed and the mixture is Asur. At the time of seeding it suffices to diminish, for mid'Oraisa one part in two is Batel, and this is not called seeding Kil'ayim. One must diminish due to Mar'is Ayin (lest it look like he transgresses). After they grew, Bitul does not apply. One must uproot everything and leave only one species.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos Yom Tov (Kil'ayim 2:1):</span> He explains that mid'Oraisa one part in two is Batel; Chachamim forbid due to Mar'is Ayin. They said that less than one part in 24 is Batel. This is astounding. Bitul b'Rov applies only when they are not Nikarim! Different species of grain are Nikar, and all the more so grain and pulse (a legume). I say that Chachamim knew that the Torah forbids only when he wants to plant Kil'ayim. Chachamim forbade this due to Mar'is Ayin, and gave a Shi'ur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chachmas Shlomo (OC 632:1):</span> The Bartenura proves, like the Levush, that Bitul applies even to something Nikar. The case of minced ants is a proof for the Levush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span>	Note - he understands, like Rashi (16b DH Mishum), that 'Chai' is a live ant. It is Batel in the minced ants, even though it is Nikar. Tosfos (DH Risek) says 'Chai' means intact, for a live ant would not join to the Shi'ur. Even Rashi said that it joins only because it dies when he eats it. Rav Yosef obligates for one minced ant and a Chai ant that comprise a k'Zayis. Chachmas Shlomo must say that this is only when the minced ant is bigger, so the live ant is Batel in it.</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 109:1):</span> If a dry piece was mixed with other pieces Min b'Mino, one in two is Batel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> This is when one does not recognize the Isur. It it was mixed Min b'Eino Mino and one does not recognize the Isur, one needs 60 for Bitul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (OC 626:1):</span> One should not make a Sukah under a tree.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch:</span> If one did, and the Sukah gives mostly shade only with the tree, one must lower the branches and mix them with the Sechach so they are not Nikarim. We need a majority of Sechach, and then the branches are Batel to the Sechach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> Normally, l'Chatchilah we may not Mevatel an Isur!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Magen Avraham 3, according to Machatzis ha'Shekel DH mi'Kol):</span> Since there is enough Sechach by itself, we do not need the branches, so there is no intent to be Mevatel an Isur. However, it is not clear how to answer for the opinion that allows the branches to join with the Sechach to create a majority of shade.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Ye'arvem):</span> It cannot be Nikar which is the Kosher and Pasul Sechach. If one put the Pasul Sechach on the Kosher, this is Nikar, and they do not join to Machshir if the Kosher Sechach has more sun than shade.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> Some say that even if the tree allows more sun and the Sukah itself gives mostly shade without the tree, if the branches are over directly over the Sechach it is Pasul, whether the tree or Sukah was there first.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (2):</span> It is Kosher even if he did not lower the branches. Tosfos and the Rosh proved this, since when the Kosher and Pasul Sechach are equal, it is Kosher, even though Chavtan does not cause Bitul b'Rov, for they are Nikarim. They are not mixed; each is by itself.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> However, if one lowered the branches and mixed them with the Sechach so they are not Nikarim, they are Batel and it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (DH v'Al):</span> Rashi, Tosfos and most Meforshim explain like this. When it is not Nikar, mid'Oraisa the Pasul is Batel in the majority. If the Pasul Sechach is Nikar, it is not Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Magen Avraham 4):</span> This is only when the Sukah itself gives mostly shade. The tree does not join. It is totally Batel; it does not join or disqualify. This is like the Ran and Rosh. The Rema's words 'so they are not Nikarim' are imprecise. The law is even if it is Nikar, since the Sukah is mostly shade. The Rema merely uses words parallel to the previous law.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Similarly, if one put Kosher Sechach on the Pasul Sechach this is a mixture, and it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Darchei Moshe ha'Aruch (3:2, brought in Hagahah 14 in Shulchan Aruch ha'Shalem):</span> The Mordechai says that if one put Sechach on the shingles, this is better than a regular mixture. This is a totally different Sechach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos (Shulchan Aruch ha'Shalem, 14):</span> This is not in our texts of the Mordechai.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Mikri):</span> Chemed Moshe and Ma'amar Mordechai say that according to the Rema, if the Kosher Sechach is on bottom, they must be mixed so that they are not Nikarim. If the Kosher Sechach is on top, they need not be mixed. It suffices to lower it. They say that there is no difference. The Mordechai and R. Shimshon hold that Chavtan does not mean mixed, rather, lowered. It suffices that they touch each other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (632:1):</span> If there is less than three Tefachim of Pasul Sechach in a minimal Sukah of seven by seven Tefachim, it is Kosher and one may sleep under it. It joins to complete the Shi'ur for a Sukah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Levush (1):</span> The Pasul Sechach is Batel to the Kosher Sechach, like any Isur that is Batel in Heter. This is difficult, for a Nikar Isur is not Batel! Perhaps it is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. Alternatively, mid'Oraisa even a Nikar Isur is Batel in the majority, for we learn from the Sanhedrin; a minority (of dissenting judges) is Batel in the majority, even though it is known! Regarding Isurim, one must discard the Isur (when it is Nikar), i.e. mid'Rabanan. Regarding Sukas Mitzvah, Chachamim left the Torah law in effect. Perhaps it is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Taz):</span> Heaven forbid to say that the Torah does not require discarding a Nikar Isur! Tosfos (Chulin 95a DH Sefeiko) says that mid'Oraisa, one is Batel in two (others) when the Isur is not Nikar. There is no proof from Sanhedrin. There is no mixture there. The Torah said that the minority opinion is Batel. We cannot say that it is reversed to the majority, like we say about mixture of Isur in Heter. Likewise, regarding Sukah, the Pasul less than three Tefachim is Batel, for there is no reason to be Pasul. It is not due to a mixture. Rather, since it is a little, it is as if it is not.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishbetzos Zahav (3):</span> The Levush is difficult. If a Nikar Isur is Batel, if we hold that the Torah permits to be Mevatel Isurim, anything can be permitted! One can mix a Neveilah with two slaughtered animals to permit it! There is no proof from Sanhedrin. Since it is not known which is the correct opinion, it is as if the Isur is not Nikar. Only regarding Isurim, it is transformed to Heter. Mid'Rabanan one must cast one away. According to one answer in Tosfos, the Torah requires casting one away.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Chasam Sofer:</span> Here the Bitul is below in the shade, and there it is not Nikar. Regarding Kil'ayim it is not Nikar where the roots nurture, and there there is Bitul. We could remove the Pasul Sechach above and avoid Bitul, and similarly regarding Kil'ayim.  We learn from Sanhedrin. The dissenters could remove themselves, and then there would not be a final verdict. We need a verdict with all the judges who began. Perhaps even so they are obligated, and forbidden to remove themselves; their opinion is Batel. The same applies here.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (Chulin 11a DH Kegon):</span> Regarding Sanhedrin, the minority is Nikar. It cannot be Batel. One does not take from the minority, just we are not concerned for it. It is as if it is not.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (YD 277):</span> Yad Eliyahu said that one Sefer Torah with a mistake is Batel in two others, for the mistake is not an important matter (that is not Batel). Even if there were only three Sifrei Torah in all, he permits using all at once. The Magen Avraham (437:4) says that whenever there is Bitul b'Rov, even if one could check it, we rely on the majority. This is why we do not check for the 18 Treifos. However, whenever an Isur was mixed and it is possible to clarify and recognize it, it is not Batel. The Levush is totally wrong. We could not say that one checks which is the Ba'al Mum to remove it, for surely, all would agree. We did not say that he discusses films in the eye and the animal was mixed with 1000 animals, i.e. and it is hard to check. Rather, if it is possible to check in any way (even if it is very hard) Bitul does not apply. The same applies to a mistake lost in a Sefer Torah.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


