# dafyomi

lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) 'HE FOLLOWS THE VIEW OF REBBI ELIEZER'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara (74a) asks which Tana does Shmuel follow when he says that an item of Avodah Zarah is not Batel even in a secondary mixture where there is a Sfek Sfeika, but any other item of Isur <i>is</i> Batel in a secondary mixture. The Gemara answers that he follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah (who says that a Sfek Sfeika does <i>not</i> permit a type of Isur that is not Batel b'Rov) with regard to Avodah Zarah, and he follows the view of Rebbi Shimon (who says that a Sfek Sfeika <i>does</i> permit a type of Isur that is not Batel b'Rov) with regard to all other Isurim.
</p><p>
The Gemara then quotes the words of Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa and asks why the second group into which one of the items from the first group falls must contain <i>three</i> Rimonim. Even if it falls into a group of <i>two</i> Rimonim, there is a Rov of Heter in the mixture! The Gemara answers that when the Beraisa says that one Rimon from the first group falls into 'three' Rimonim, it means that it falls into a group of two Rimonim such that <i>after</i> it falls it is now a mixture of three Rimonim.
</p><p>
The Gemara offers an alternative answer and says, 'v'Iy Ba'is Eima, Savar Lah k'Rebbi Eliezer....' The straightforward meaning of the Gemara is that it is giving a second answer for the question that it asked immediately before (why does the Beraisa say that the Rimon from the first mixture fell into three, and not into two, Rimonim). The Gemara answers that the Beraisa follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that when a prohibited item becomes Batel in a mixture, one is permitted to use only two of the items at a time, but not one item (see Rashi to 77b, DH Ela Shenayim, who explains the reasoning behind this). Therefore, the Beraisa gives a case in which all of the Rimonim in the second mixture will be able to be used (that is, there is an even number of Rimonim after the questionable Rimon falls in), and that is why it says that one Rimon falls into a group of three, and not into a group of two (in which case one Rimon would be left unusable). This is how <b>RASHI</b> undertands the Gemara in his second explanation, which <b>TOSFOS</b> endorses.
</p><p>
Rashi, however, explains that the Gemara is giving an answer to its earlier question of which Tana does Shmuel follow. The Gemara is saying that Shmuel follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer when he says that a Sfek Sfeika of an Isur of Avodah Zarah is Asur, while a Sfek Sfeika of any other Isur is permitted. In Avodah Zarah (49b), Rebbi Eliezer says that when a piece of wood of Avodah Zarah becomes mixed with other wood, and then a piece of that mixture becomes mixed with other wood, the subsequent mixture is prohibited. Rashi says that this is the preferred explanation of the Gemara.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi deviate from the straightforward flow of the Gemara, which clearly implies that this is a second answer to the Gemara's question of why the Beraisa mentions three Rimonim and not two? (See <b>TOSFOS</b>, who asks a number of other questions on Rashi's explanation.)
</p><p>
ANSWER: <b>RAV ZAFRANI</b> shlit'a (in <b>VA'YIZRA YITZCHAK</b>) explains as follows. Rebbi Eliezer's allowance to use two items of the mixture at once, as expressed earlier (74a; see also 77b), was said only in a case in which one item from the mixture has been removed (it fell into the sea or, in the case of animals designated as Korbanos, it was offered as a Korban). The Gemara here is discussing a different case -- the status of the second mixture into which an item from the first mixture fell. Rashi explains that in the first case (when one item fell into the sea), the Heter to use the remaining items is <i>not</i> due to a Sfek Sfeika, but rather because it is assumed that it was the Isur that fell into the sea, and the remaining items are permitted. Since this Heter is based on a leniency, Rebbi Eliezer necessitates using the items in pairs, so that at least one of them will be one that certainly is permitted. In contrast, in the case that the Gemara now discusses, the Heter is due to an ordinary Sfek Sfeika, and thus there is no reason to necessitate using the items in pairs. Therefore, Rashi here explains that the Gemara refers to the view of Rebbi Eliezer in Avodah Zarah, and that the Gemara is addressing the earlier question of which Tana does Shmuel follow.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, follows the second explanation. Why does Tosfos not explain like Rashi, that there is a difference between the Heter of Rebbi Eliezer earlier and the Heter of Sfek Sfeika here? The answer is that Tosfos understands that also in the earlier case the Heter is based on a Sfek Sfeika: perhaps the Isur fell into the sea, and even if it was not the Isur that fell into the sea, perhaps the item that is being used now is not the item of Isur. Even though the Heter is based on a Sfek Sfeika, Rebbi Eliezer still necessitates using the items in pairs. Therefore, Tosfos understands the Gemara in its most straightforward sense. The Gemara is giving an answer for why the Beraisa mentions three Rimonim and not two, and it is teaching that even in a secondary mixture (which is permitted because of a Sfek Sfeika), the items in the mixture are permitted only when used in pairs.
</p><p>
Rav Zafrani points out that the <b>RASHBA</b> also seems to understand, like Rashi, that the earlier Heter (of a mixture from which one item fell into the sea) is not due to a Sfek Sfeika. The Rashba (in <b>TORAS HA'BAYIS HA'AROCH</b>) rules that when one item from the mixture falls into the sea, all of the remaining items may be eaten at one time. However, if the Heter is based on a Sfek Sfeika, then by eating the entire mixture at one time there is only a single Safek (perhaps the item that fell was the Isur), and the mixture should be prohibited! It must be that the Rashba understands that the Heter is based on a special leniency which allows one to assume that the item that fell out of the mixture was the item of Isur.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> in Chulin (7:37) quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who argues with the Rashba and clearly prohibits eating the entire mixture at once. He understands, like Tosfos here, that the Heter in the case of the item that fell into the sea is due to a Sfek Sfeika that perhaps it was the Isur that fell out, and even if it was an item of Heter, perhaps the item that one is eating now is not the item of Isur. Accordingly, one is prohibited to eat all of the items left in the mixture at one time. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) BLOODS OF DIFFERENT KORBANOS THAT BECAME MIXED TOGETHER</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Beraisa discusses various cases in which one type of Korban became mixed with another type, and the identity of each Korban is unknown. Specifically, the cases are a Korban Yachid that became mixed with another Korban Yachid, a Korban Tzibur that became mixed with another Korban Tzibur, and a Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur that became mixed with each other. The Beraisa states that one must perform four Haza'os from the blood of each Korban. This Halachah applies, however, only when the blood of each Korban is in its own vessel and has not been mixed with the blood of another Korban. If the bloods of the various animals have been mixed together, then only four Haza'os are done altogether, for all of the Korbanos.
</p><p>
What is the first part of the Beraisa teaching? It is obvious that as long as the bloods have not become mixed, they should not be mixed, but rather separate Haza'os should be performed for each Korban! (<b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWER: In the case of a Korban Yachid that became mixed with a Korban Tzibur, there is a strong reason to suggest that it is preferable to mix the bloods of the two animals together. The Halachah is that a Korban Tzibur has precedence over a Korban Yachid because of the principle of 'Tadir v'she'Eino Tadir, Tadir Kodem' -- that which comes more frequently takes precedence. A Korban Tzibur, such as a Korban Tamid, comes more frequently than a Korban Yachid, and, therefore, when the two Korbanos are waiting to be offered, the blood of the Korban Tzibur should be placed on the Mizbe'ach before the blood of the Korban Yachid. Accordingly, in the case of a Korban Yachid and a Korban Tzibur that became mixed and are unidentifiable from each other, there is reason to say that the bloods of the two Korbanos should be mixed and their Zerikas ha'Dam performed together, so that the blood of the Korban Yachid not be placed on the Mizbe'ach before the blood of the Korban Tzibur. The reason why this logic does <i>not</i> apply is due to another principle, 'Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos Chavilos' -- we do not make 'bundles' out of Mitzvos, but rather we perform each one separately.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic. The <b>TAHARAS HA'KODESH</b> points out that the law is that the Kohen is to forego the entire Zerikas ha'Dam of a Korban in order to avoid violating the Halachah of precedence, and therefore the Halachah of precedence should override the concern for 'Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos.' The Mishnah later (81b) discusses a case in which blood that is supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon becomes mixed with blood that is supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. This poses a dilemma. If the Kohen places both bloods on the outer Mizbe'ach first, then he will be violating the rule that the Avodah done with the inner Mizbe'ach precedes that done with the outer Mizbe'ach. On the other hand, he cannot place both bloods on the inner Mizbe'ach first, because if the blood that was supposed to be placed on the outer Mizbe'ach is that of a Korban Chatas, then the Korban will become Pasul by having its blood placed on the inner Mizbe'ach (as the verse states, Vayikra 6:23). In such a case, the Halachah is that both bloods are cast into the Amah and the Korban is Pasul. This case shows that in order to avoid violating the principle of precedence, the Kohen is to let the Korban become Pasul.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Beraisa here not suggest that the bloods be mixed in order to avoid risking a violation of the principle of precedence? If, as the Mishnah later (81b) teaches, the Kohen is supposed to throw out the blood in order to avoid violating the precedence of the Korbanos, then in this case he certainly should mix them!
</p><p>
There are two possible answers to this question.
</p><p>
1. In the case of the Beraisa here, it is merely a <i>possibility</i> that the Zerikas ha'Dam of the less-frequent Korban will be performed first. It might happen that the blood of the Korban Tzibur will be placed on the Mizbe'ach first, and thus the principle of precedence will not be violated. In the case of the Mishnah later (81b), if the bloods will be placed on the outer Mizbe'ach first, then the principle of precedence <i>certainly</i> will be violated, and, therefore, the bloods are cast into the Amah.
</p><p>
2. The requirement of the precedence of something that is more frequent ('Tadir') applies only when it is possible to preserve the precedence by performing the act now. If the act which is 'Tadir' is not ready now to be performed, or there is some reason for not performing it now, then there is no requirement to wait. Rather, the less-frequent act may be performed right away. This is because the Torah does not establish a specific order in which those Korbanos must be offered. Rather, the Torah says that if there are two Mitzvos ready and available to be done, one must give precedence to the one which is Tadir. Therefore, when the bloods are mixed and there is no way of knowing which blood came from the Korban which is 'Tadir' and which blood came from the Korban which is not 'Tadir,' the requirement of precedence does not apply.
</p><p>
In contrast, the precedence of an Avodah done with the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi over an Avodah done with the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is different. There <i>is</i> an obligation to bring the blood upon the inner Mizbe'ach first, even if that means delaying the blood of the outer Mizbe'ach until the blood of the inner Mizbe'ach is ready. Here, the Torah <i>does</i> prescribe a specific order for the Avodos, and it is not only a question of precedence when both Mitzvos are ready and available. Therefore, in the case of the Mishnah later (81b), although the Kohen is unable to perform the Avodah of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi first, he still cannot perform the Avodah of the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon before that of the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, and thus the bloods must be poured into the Amah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> IS THERE A SHI'UR FOR THE ISUR TO WASTE SHEMITAH PRODUCE? <span class='indexentry'>[Peros Shemitah: wasting]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One may not buy Terumah with Demei (money paid for produce of) Shemitah, for this limits the time to eat it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	106b - Question (Ravina):</span> If we can learn a Lav from a Kal va'Chomer, why did the Torah write a Lav forbidding Chelev? We could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer from Tahor Sheratzim. They are Chayavei Lavin. All the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We cannot learn from Tahor Sheratzim, for one is liable for any amount.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> We could have learned from Shemitah produce!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We cannot learn from Shemitah, for it forbids anything exchanged for it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sukah 35b (Mishnah):</span> One may not use an Esrog of Tahor Terumah for the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Ami or Rav Asi):</span> This is because he is Machshir it to receive Tum'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(The other of R. Ami and Rav Asi):</span> This is because he wastes Terumah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	They argue about one who made an Esrog Terumah except for the peel. It becomes Huchshar, but Terumah is not wasted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	39a (Mishnah):</span> One who buys a Lulav in Shemitah receives the Esrog for a gift.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 12b:</span> Rav Chisda taught that a Shemitah animal is exempt from Bechorah, since Shemitah is for eating, and not for burning (the Eimurim).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Mishnah):</span> One who eats from a Shemitah dough before separating Chalah is Chayav Misah (b'Yedei Shamayim).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If the Chalah were Tamei, we would have to burn it. We should exempt the dough from Chalah, for Shemitah is to be eaten, and not burned!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> 'L'Doroseichem' obligates a Shemitah dough in Chalah.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shemitah 5:17):</span> One may cut trees in Shemitah for the wood before they have fruits. Once they start to make fruits, one may not cut them, for he wastes the food, and it says about Shemitah 'for you to eat', but not to waste.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (75b DH Shevi'is):</span> The Isur to buy Terumah with Demei Shemitah is because it limits the time to eat Terumah, for one will may not eat it after Bi'ur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chazon Ish (Shevi'is 14:13):</span> The Isur is due to wasting Shemitah (if it will become Tamei), and also because it limits the time to eat Terumah. Also the Gra (Shevi'is 8:7) says that the Isur is due to both (and that the Mishnah in Shemitah connotes that it is primarilydue to Shemitah).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharit (1:83):</span> People feed strawberry leaves to silkworms. May one do so in Shemitah? Taking the leaves harms human food. One may not cut trees mishe'Yotzi (from when they give out - Shevi'is 4:10). The Rambam and Rashi explain that this is when they produce green leaves, for then we are concerned for wasting the fruit. R. Shimshon says that it is when they produce fruits; he is an individual against them. Feeding the strawberry leaves after Chanatah (budding) overtly harms the fruit. It dries up and falls. Even if the gain of silk is worth more than the loss of fruit, this permits regarding 'Bal Tashchis', but not regarding Kedushah. I permit because these trees are not planted for food or fruits, rather, for silk. Therefore, 'to eat, but not to waste' does not apply. Rather, it is a loss to leave them for fruits!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharit:</span> R. Shimshon is correct. Shevi'is 4:10 discusses from when one may cut various kinds of trees; all of them depend on levels of development of the fruits. Rashi retracted (in Berachos 36b, which cites that Mishnah), and the Rambam retracted in the Mishnah Torah. Before it produces fruit, one may cut the tree. Even after it produces fruit, one may cut the leaves, even though it causes the fruits to dry up and fall. This merely causes the food to be ruined; it is not overt. The Yerushalmi permits this. Whatever is not ready to eat, one may benefit from it in a normal way, even if this will prevent being able to eat it later. We expound 'for you' - for all your needs. If it is edible, we do not use it for other things. Therefore, one may not cut a tree after it brought fruits.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yom Tov Algazi (on Ramban Hilchos Bechoros/Chalah p.26a DH v'Hinei l'Fi):</span> The Ramban holds that it is a Mitzvas Aseh to eat Shemitah, and not to sell it or waste it. Stam eating is a k'Zayis. Why did the Gemara challenge Rav Chisda from a Mishnah that teaches that Chalah applies to a Shemitah dough? One can separate any amount for Chalah, but the Isur to waste Shemitah is only for a k'Zayis! The Birkei Yosef holds that just like R. Yochanan holds that the Torah forbids Chetzi Shi'ur of Isur, it obligates doing a Mitzvah with Chetzi Shi'ur (e.g. not to waste Shemitah). However, Tosfos and the Ramban hold that less than a Beitzah is not Mekabel Tum'ah mid'Oraisa. If so, there is no reason to exempt Shemitah from Chalah due to Tum'ah, for one can separate less than a Beitzah! The Ramban must have the text of the Rambam, which suggested exempting only because this is like selling (Shemitah to a Kohen). It did not mention that if it becomes Tamei, it must be burned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas Seridei Esh (2:90 p.602):</span> The Gemara never mentions a Mitzvah to eat Shemitah Peros. The Ramban counts this for a Mitzvah, i.e. it is a Lav derived from an Aseh to eat it, and not waste it. However, there is no Aseh to eat it, like the Aseh to eat Kodshim and Terumah. Therefore, there is no source to say that the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis. Rather, one may not waste any amount.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Torah Temimah (Vayikra 25:6 (21)):</span> Rashi explains that the opinion that forbids using an Esrog of Tahor Terumah because he wastes it holds that the peel becomes repulsive through being handled. The same should apply to a Shemitah Esrog, but Sukah 39a connotes that one may use a Shemitah Esrog for the Mitzvah! He answered that since only the peel is ruined, but the fruit can be eaten, the Isur 'to eat, but not to waste' does not apply. Only regarding Terumah one may not waste even the peel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Har Tzvi 2:111):</span> There is no source to distinguish Terumah from Shemitah. Pe'as ha'Shulchan (Beis Ridvaz) answers that the opinion that forbids because he wastes Terumah holds that it is mere Gerama (causation). This is forbidden regarding Terumah, for which there is a Chiyuv Shemirah (to guard it). There is no Chiyuv Shemirah regarding Shemitah, so one may cause it to be wasted, like the Maharit says.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Toras ha'Aretz (8:35):</span> In Bechoros, we say that if not for 'l'Doroseichem', we would have exempted Shemitah from Chalah, for if it will become Tamei, it must be burned, and the Torah said 'to eat', and not to burn. He asked that this is only Gerama. The Torah permits it. Why is a verse needed? He answered that without a verse, we would forbid Gerama. The verse teaches that it is permitted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Har Tzvi ibid.):</span> The question was not whether one may make it Chalah, rather, whether it takes effect. It is possible to guard it in Taharah so it will be become Tamei. Without separating Chalah, one may not eat it. Separating Chalah permits eating the rest! Maharit's proof from the Yerushalmi is astounding. It discusses passively allowing a loss. One cannot learn from there to permit an act! He relies on what he said, that the Heter is because the trees were planted for silk, and not for the fruits. He does not permit all Gerama. He agrees that one may not cut trees after they bring fruits that are not ready! Perhaps using an Esrog is considered overtly ruining it. Kapos Temarim connotes like this.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Har Tzvi:</span> Beis Ne'eman says that the peel of an Esrog is less than a k'Zayis. Regarding (guarding) Terumah, the Torah does not mention eating, therefore the Isur to waste it applies to any amount. We learn guarding Shemitah from 'Le'echol', therefore, the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis. We are not concerned for wasting less than this. One can challenge this.  Teshuvas R. Chaim Rapaport (YD 59) says that the Isur of Shemitah applies to any amount. If so, why may one use an Esrog of Shemitah? However, I proved that the Isur does not apply to any amount. If one must eat Isur (due to Piku'ach Nefesh), he eats the lightest Isur. Shemitah is lighter than than Tevel (Yoma 83a). The Ran asked why we slaughter on Shabbos for a Choleh. He should rather eat Neveilah, which is a light Isur compared to Melachah on Shabbos, which is punishable by stoning! The Ran answers that there is a stringency to Neveilah, that he transgresses for every k'Zayis. Therefore, if one were liable for any amount of Shemitah, it would be more stringent than Tevel. Rather, also the Shi'ur for Shemitah is k'Zayis. Also, in Zevachim we say that any amount of Sheratzim is forbidden, but we do not say so about Shemitah. What was the question about Chalah from a dough of Shemitah? Some Poskim obligate Chalah from a dough kneaded with fruit juice, even though it is not Mekabel Tum'ah! Rather, Rav Chisda holds that Kedushas Shevi'is overrides Bechorah and anything that might contradict Kedushas Shevi'is. Therefore, it should override Chalah, lest a dough be Huchshar (and become Tamei), and perhaps it will be a k'Zayis or it will join with another partial Shi'ur to a full k'Zayis. I can answer that we are not concerned for wasting an Esrog. Stam Esrogim are planted for the Mitzvah with intent that the peel will be ruined, so there is no Isur to ruin it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion (the questioner in Tzitz Eliezer 6:33:7):</span> Sidur Ya'avetz (p.101, Hilchos Milah 76) brings a custom after sucking the blood from the Bris, to put wine in the mouth and spit it all out on the Milah for Refu'ah. Even though the Yerushalmi forbids using wine for Refu'ah, perhaps the Isur to waste Shemitah does not apply to Chetzi Shi'ur. Beis Ridvaz concludes that it is Asur. Mishmeres ha'Bayis says that the Yerushalmi permits. We may rely on this for the above Refu'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Tzitz Eliezer):</span> Mishmeres ha'Bayis said that it is only a partial proof from the Yerushalmi (one can explain it differently), and surely there is an Isur mid'Rabanan. The Yerushalmi discusses whether the Torah forbids any amount. Toras ha'Aretz and Bayis Ne'eman concluded that the Isur applies to Chetzi Shi'ur. Shabbos ha'Aretz says not to fill a cup for Havdalah with Shemitah wine to overflowing for a Siman Berachah, since what spills is wasted, and not to use Shemitah wine for the second cup at the Seder, from which we spill drops (for the plagues and their initials), He forbids even less than a Shi'ur which is a Siman Berachah and a custom of Yisrael. He also brings a proof from Zevachim 75b (which Stam forbids buying Terumah with Demei Shemitah. It did not give a Shi'ur.) If the above Refu'ah were a Mitzvah, perhaps there would be room to permit (but it is not). Sefer ha'Shemitah and Tzitz ha'Kodesh were lenient to use a Shemitah Esrog when no other was available. Toras ha'Aretz is stringent about this</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CAUSING A KORBAN TO BECOME 'PASUL' PREMATURELY</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul' -- we may not cause an item of Kodshim to become Pasul before its allotted time. Accordingly, a Korban Shelamim cannot be offered with the stringencies of a Korban Asham, because a Shelamim is eaten for two days and one night, while an Ashem is eaten for only one day and one night, and by offering the Shelamim with the stringencies of an Asham one causes it to become Pasul before its allotted time.
</p><p>
The Gemara teaches that this principle also applies to items of Terumah. One may not purchase foods of Terumah with money of Shevi'is (money received in exchange for fruits of Shevi'is), because the Terumah will acquire the Kedushah of Shevi'is, and, consequently, it will need to be eaten or destroyed before the time of Bi'ur, thus limiting the time it may be eaten.
</p><p>
Is this principle a Halachah d'Oraisa, or is it a decree instituted by the Rabanan?
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>MABIT</b> in <b>KIRYAS SEFER</b> ((Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin #6) states that the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul' is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, one may offer a Korban Shelamim with the stringencies of a Korban Asham.
</p><p>
This view, however, seems to contradict the Gemara in Bechoros. The Gemara in Bechoros (12b) says that a dough made from flour of Shevi'is should be exempt from the laws of Chalah. Such dough should exempt from Chalah, presumably because the Chalah might become Tamei, and Chalah that is Tamei must be burned and may not be eaten, and it is improper to burn an item of Shevi'is (because this would constitute bringing Kodshim (the item of Shevi'is) to Beis ha'Pesul). When the Gemara there says that Shevi'is is exempt from Chalah (which is a Chiyuv d'Oraisa), the Gemara implies that, mid'Oraisa, we are not supposed to cause a possible loss to Kodshim. Similarly, causing Kodshim to become Pasul before its time should be included in this d'Oraisa law.
</p><p>
The <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> (#39) answers by giving a different explanation for the Gemara in Bechoros. The Gemara there does not mean that dough of Shevi'is should be exempt from Chalah because of the possibility that it might become Tamei and need to be burned. Rather, the Gemara means that if the dough would become Tamei <i>now</i>, there would be no obligation to separate Chalah because doing so would be causing Shevi'is products to be burned for <i>certain</i> (since, nowadays, when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash, all items of Chalah are burned). Therefore, the Gemara says that there is no requirement to separate Chalah even when the dough is Tahor, because of a Hekesh between Chalah that is Tahor and Chalah that is Tamei. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CAUSING A KORBAN TO BECOME 'PASUL' PREMATURELY</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul' -- we may not cause an item of Kodshim to become Pasul before its allotted time. Accordingly, a Korban Shelamim cannot be offered with the stringencies of a Korban Asham, because a Shelamim is eaten for two days and one night, while an Ashem is eaten for only one day and one night, and by offering the Shelamim with the stringencies of an Asham one causes it to become Pasul before its allotted time.
</p><p>
The Gemara teaches that this principle also applies to items of Terumah. One may not purchase foods of Terumah with money of Shevi'is (money received in exchange for fruits of Shevi'is), because the Terumah will acquire the Kedushah of Shevi'is, and, consequently, it will need to be eaten or destroyed before the time of Bi'ur, thus limiting the time it may be eaten.
</p><p>
Are there any exceptions to the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul'?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 5:4) writes that small amounts of Shevi'is produce may be cooked together with Terumah, since it will be eaten right away and will not be left around for such a long time (until the time of Bi'ur) that it will become unfit for eating. This ruling is based on the Yerushalmi.
</p><p>
In the case of a Korban, when one limits the time for eating only a small amount of meat, he is not considered to be causing Kodshim to become Pasul. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 6:10) writes this with regard to the Korban of a Nazir that became mixed with a Korban Todah. Although the Zero'a Beshelah of a Nazir is permitted only to Kohanim, the Shelamim still is offered with the stringency of restricting its Zero'a to Kohanim. This is because the restriction affects only a small part of the Korban.
</p><p>
The <b>MINCHAS SHLOMO</b> (#39) understands that this exception is consistent with the Rambam's other exception, that small amounts of Shevi'is produce that can be eaten immediately are not subject to the principle of 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul.' In the case of the Korban of a Nazir, the Zero'a Beshelah can (and will) be eaten immediately by the Kohanim and it will not be left to become Pasul.
</p><p>
(b) Others, however, explain that the Rambam's ruling with regard to the Korban of a Nazir that become mixed with a Korban Todah is unrelated to the Rambam's earlier ruling regarding Shevi'is foods that will be eaten immediately. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (YD 114) explains that in the case of the Korban of a Nazir that became mixed with a Korban Todah, there are two possibilities for what to do. The first option is to leave both Korbanos to graze and become blemished, so that they may be redeemed and new animals purchased and offered. The second option is to offer both animals with the risk of losing the Mitzvah to eat <i>part</i> of the Korban. In this case, it is preferable to offer both even though a small part of the Todah might not be eaten (and become Pasul), instead of losing the Korbanos entirely.
</p><p>
The <b>CHANUKAS HA'BAYIS</b> (#27) explains the words of the Chasam Sofer as follows. The Rambam rules that when only a part of the Korban is brought closer to Pesul, the prohibition does not apply. This is because the primary responsibility is to ensure that the Mitzvah of Achilah is done with the Korban. Losing a few k'Zeisim of the Korban does not entirely eliminate the Mitzvas Achilah. As long as most of it is eaten, the Mitzvah is fulfilled. Therefore, in the case of a Korban Nazir mixed with a Korban Todah, in order not to lose the entire Korban, it suffices that the Mitzvah is done with a majority of the Korban so that the Mitzvas Achilah not be lost entirely. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker) </p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) LIMITING THE EATING OF TERUMAH TEMPORARILY</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (3:2) which states that it is prohibited to buy food of Terumah with money of Ma'aser Sheni (money on which produce of Ma'aser Sheni was redeemed), because the Kedushah of Ma'aser Sheni would limit the Terumah to being eaten within the walls of Yerushalayim, and, as a result, the Terumah might not be eaten at all.
</p><p>
If it is prohibited to limit the eating of Terumah in such a manner, then it also should be prohibited to use an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim. The Esrog, during Sukos, becomes 'set aside for the Mitzvah' and may not be eaten. Although the Isur to eat the Esrog is only temporary, causing a temporary limitation to the time of eating Terumah is also prohibited. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ein Lokchin) explains that one may not buy Terumah with money of Ma'aser Sheni, because Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten by an Onen, while Terumah may be eaten by an Onen. Although the state of Aninus lasts for only one day, Tosfos considers this form of limiting the eating of Terumah prohibited. (See <b>CHACHAM TZVI</b> #151.)
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHAM</b> in <b>DA'AS TORAH</b> (OC 665) questions the view of Tosfos from the Gemara in Sukah (35b) which gives two reasons for why one may not use an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim, but it does not mention the reason of limiting the eating of Terumah.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>PEIROS TE'ENAH</b> answers that since the problem of limiting the eating of Terumah does not always prohibit the use of an Esrog of Terumah, the other two reasons in the Gemara in Sukah are necessary. For example, if another person already used the Esrog for the Mitzvah, a second person who uses it does not cause it to become prohibited to be eaten, since the first person already caused it to become prohibited.
</p><p>
This answer is problematic, because neither of the other two reasons cited in Sukah apply all the time, as the Gemara and Tosfos there point out, and yet the Gemara still mentions them.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps one may answer as follows. When one wants to use the Terumah in its present state for a purpose that will limit its eating temporarily, one is not always considered as though he is causing it to become Pasul. The prohibition of 'Mevi Kodshim l'Veis ha'Pesul' applies only when the consumption of the Korban (or Terumah) is limited because of a restricting factor in the Korban itself. For example, if one were to bring a Korban Todah on Erev Pesach, there would be a restricting factor that the Chalos Todah may be eaten only until midday (since Chametz is prohibited on Erev Pesach after midday). This is a problem in the Korban itself. Similarly, by giving Terumah the additional sanctity of Ma'aser Sheni, one would cause it to have the new restrictions of the additional sanctity. In contrast, if one places an external restricting factor on a Korban which is not a problem in the Korban itself (for example, he makes a vow that he will not eat the meat of a Korban), he does not transgress the Isur of causing Kodshim to become Pasul. (It is as though he caused himself to have a stomach ache and was unable to eat the Kodshim, or he closed the Kodshim in a temporarily locked box.) The actual Korban itself has not changed in any way, and thus the Isur does not apply.
</p><p>
According to this approach, it is clear why the use of an Esrog of Terumah for the Mitzvah during Sukos is not prohibited, even though designating it for the Mitzvah makes it prohibited to be eaten. When one decides to use an Esrog for the Mitzvah, the Esrog becomes prohibited to be eaten on that day due to its designation for the Mitzvah. Nothing has happened to the physical state of the Esrog itself. It is comparable to one who makes a Neder to prohibit the meat of Kodshim. Although in practice he has limited the time of eating the Korban, he has caused no inherent change to the Korban itself, like Chametz upon the arrival of Pesach. It is an external factor that prohibits the item from being eaten in these cases of Korban, Chametz, and Esrog. Creating such a limitation by designating the Esrog for the Mitzvah is not considered causing Kodshim or Terumah to become Pasul. Hence, the Gemara in Sukah seeks other reasons to prohibit the use of an Esrog of Terumah on Sukos. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> A DOUGH PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM CHALAH <span class='indexentry'>[Chalah: Chiyuv]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Shimon):</span> (If a Nazir was Safek Tamei Mes, and was unsure if he must perform Taharas Metzora... he brings a lamb a Log of oil, and stipulates: if I need to bring Asham Metzora, this is the Asham and the oil. If I need not bring it, this lamb is a Shelamim, and the oil is Nedavah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	We take a Kometz of oil, for perhaps it is Nedavah. We do seven sprinklings, for perhaps he needs Taharas Metzora. A full Log must remain, so we add more to restore the Shi'ur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	77a - Question:</span> The Shirayim must be eaten, but oil was added after the Kometz was separated, and nothing permits the addition (and it is mixed with the Shirayim)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We redeem the addition.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chalah (Mishnah 3:8):</span> If one took Se'or (sourdough, which ferments dough) from a dough from which Chalah was not taken and put in dough from which Chalah was taken, if he has Parnasah from elsewhere (another dough from which he can separate Chalah and exempt this), he separates according to the calculation. If not, he separates one Chalah on everything.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah 10):</span> Any amount of Tevel forbids b'Mino. Min b'Eino Mino, it forbids b'Nosen Ta'am (if it gives taste).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Bikurim 7:11):</span> If one took Se'or from a dough from which Chalah was not taken and put in dough from which Chalah was taken, he brings a second dough so that combined with the Se'or, there will be a Shi'ur that obligates taking Chalah. He puts it in the dough from which Chalah was taken, and separates from the second dough a Shi'ur of Chalah for it and the Se'or, in order that he separates Min ha' Mukaf (right near the dough it exempts.). If he does not have another dough, the first dough becomes totally Tevel, and separates Chalah on everything, for any amount of Tevel forbids b'Mino.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> A Chulin dough (i.e. from which Chalah was taken) is not a Hefsek between Tevel doughs (i.e. from which Chalah was not taken).  Our text says 'he puts it in the dough.' This is a mistake. Even when they are next to each other, this is considered Mukaf. Even though the Chulin dough interrupts, this does not mandate putting the second dough in the first, for the Chulin dough is not a Hefsek. I found a corrected text that says 'he puts it near the dough.' Semag says like the Rambam, and he says that he puts in to the side of the first dough. We discuss when the Se'or was taken from a dough with a Shi'ur that obligates Chalah. If not, we would not need to find Parnasah from elsewhere. The case when there is no other Parnasah is when the dough (from which the Se'or came) was eaten or lost.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> The Rambam says that he puts the second dough in the dough. If not, the Chulin dough would interrupt. We do not say that the Se'or is Batel to the dough, and he separates from Chayav (what is liable) on Patur (what is exempt), for any amount of Tevel forbids. It is not Batel. This is why the entire (first) dough reverted to be Tevel, and he separates on the entire dough. We do not say that Chalah and Chulin are mixed together. Everything that he separates is like Chalah in every way.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Hilchos Chalah 9):</span> If one took a Kav (note - it seems that he refers to Se'or, but the Terumas ha'Deshen (below) explains differently) from a dough that is Chayav, and put it in an exempt dough, if he has Parnasah from elsewhere, e.g. another dough that is Chayav, he separate one part in 24. This is not like separating from Chayav on Patur, since the Se'or is not Batel in the dough. A Tosefta says that he brings flour and kneads a dough to complete five Reva'im together with the Se'or. (A Rova (quarter-Kav) is the volume of six eggs. Five Reva'im obligate taking Chalah.) If he does not have a dough that is Chayav, and not flour, he separates one part in 24 on the entire dough. Any amount of Tevel forbids  b'Mino, and the entire dough becomes Tevel to Chalah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Teshuvah 2:3):</span> Some people use Se'or of Nochrim to ferment dough. When they separate Chalah, they take more than the amount of Nochri Se'or, lest they separate from Patur on Chayav. They need not do so. Rather, they knead a little flour, put that small dough on the big dough, and then separate that bit of flour they kneaded on the big dough.  This is like Chalah 3:8. Parnasah is another dough from which he can do the needs of this dough and fix the Se'or of this dough. Do not say that this is not Chayav on Patur, for the Se'or is a small amount and it is Batel in the dough that is exempt, so then the entire dough is exempt. This is not so, for Se'or is added for taste, therefore, it is not Batel, and it is still Chayav. All the more so, when people use Se'or of Nochrim, the dough is Chayav, so it is not Batel in the dough that is exempt. Even though Se'or is for taste, the dough is primary with respect to the Se'or. They separate a second Chalah from the big dough.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (76b DH v'Iy):</span> How can one redeem the oil? It receives Kedushas ha'Guf (intrinsic Kedushah), for the Log (the Keli in which it is measured) is a Keli Shares (which is Mekadesh what one puts into it)! Perhaps a Keli Shares is Mekadesh what one puts into it only when it is full. Here, most of the oil was already Hukdash. It does not join with the addition that did not yet become Kodesh. Alternatively, it was put in the Keli Shares in order to receive Kedushas Damim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> The Yerushalmi says 'if not, he brings four Reva'im and touches, i.e. he touches the four Reva'im to the Tevel Se'or. Together there is a Shi'ur of Chalah. He separates from the four Reva'im according to the calculation. R. Yonah derived from here that if a Rova of Tevel Se'or makes another four Reva'im Tevel. I.e. one might have thought that one Rova from a dough that is already Tevel to Chalah cannot join with four Reva'im that were not yet Tevel to Chalah to complete the Shi'ur of five Reva'im and obligate Chalah. A Chiyuv cannot take effect on a Chiyuv. It is as if the Rova is away, by itself, and there is not a Shi'ur in the rest to be obligated. We say like this regarding Sava Lah (it is satiated with) Tum'ah (Tosfos Shabbos 91b DH Pachos). The Mishnah teaches unlike this. Even though the Rova already became Tevel, it joins to obligate the four Reva'im. Tosfos says (in one answer - PF) that the oil that is already Kodesh does not join with the addition that is not yet Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Terumas ha'Deshen (190):</span> After Pesach, people usually knead with Se'or of Nochrim (for no Yisrael has Se'or, and it takes a long time for fresh dough to become Se'or). There are many ways to fix it. The Rosh concludes that one may separate from the dough itself. We are not concerned lest he take the Nochri's dough and he separates from Patur on Chayav, for we hold that Yesh Bilah (we assume that things mix uniformly) for Lach (wet things, which totally mix. Also a dough is mixed.) Semak says that people do not rely on Bilah; this is a big stringency. However, the Mordechai and Or Zaru'a say not to separate in this way from the dough itself, for we hold that Yesh Bilah only for wine and oil. One must separate a larger amount than the Nochri's Se'or, for then the excess must be of the Yisrael. (Mid'Oraisa, there is no Shi'ur to Chalah.) Teshuvas ha'Rosh says that one should knead new dough, even though in his Pesakim he allowed to separate from the initial dough itself. It seems that he admits about Se'or that Ein Bilah, and in his Pesakim he does not discuss Se'or. However, Semak explicitly says that Yesh Bilah for Se'or. One should be stringent. How can we fix matters for the future? Women usually leave some of the dough to ferment future doughs. If they separate it before taking Chalah, it will remain Chayav. If they separate it after taking Chalah, it is exempt, like Se'or of Nochrim. (On Motza'ei Pesach,) even if one removes, before taking Chalah, the dough he will save to ferment future doughs, perhaps it is of the Nochri! It seems that we are not concerned lest this happen, and that also next time he will separate this same piece from the Nochri.</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 324:11):</span> If one took Se'or from a dough from which Chalah was not taken and put in dough from which Chalah was taken, and it is all the same species, if he has flour or dough from which Chalah was not taken, he separates from it on this dough according to the calculation, i.e. one part in 48 of the Se'or.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> This is even if it does not have a Shi'ur Chalah, as long as he puts it next to the big Chalah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Prishah (16, and Taz 10):</span> My Rebbi (the Maharshal) says that this is only if Se'or was used, but a dough does not make Tevel unless it has a Shi'ur (to obligate taking Chalah).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (18):</span> The same applies if Tevel dough (not Se'or) was put into a Chulin dough. The taste of Tevel forbids any amount. Here it is easier to separate from the dough itself, for Yesh Bilah for wet things. What he separates will surely have some of the Tevel dough, and mid'Oraisa there is no Shi'ur. According to Terumas ha'Deshen, who says that Ein Bilah for Se'or, the Rosh permits separating from the dough itself only when the Se'or is Tevel and the dough is Chulin, for any amount of Tevel forbids, so the entire dough becomes Tevel. If Se'or of Nochrim (which is Patur) is put in Tevel dough, one may not separate from the dough itself, lest he take only the Patur Se'or. The Tur brings R. Peretz, who permits also in this case. This connotes that he holds that the Rosh agrees that Yesh Bilah even for Se'or. If so, the Rosh did not need to say that the entire dough became Tevel. Perhaps we rely on Bilah only when the dough is mostly Chayav, for then surely he takes some of the Chiyuv; mid'Oraisa, any amount suffices for Chalah. When only a little (the Se'or) is Chayav, we do not rely on Bilah, lest he take only from the primary dough. Therefore, we must explain that the entire dough became Tevel. I do not understand the Prishah, for in every case there is no Shi'ur mid'Oraisa for Chalah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Nekudas ha'Kesef:</span> Perhaps the Prishah means that it is Tovel only if it came from a big dough Chayav in Chalah. However, if so why did he mention Se'or? It is not different than dough. It depends only on the size of the dough it came from!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva Eiger (DH d'Harei):</span> Surely the primary dough is not Batel in the Se'or!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (14):</span> There must be five Reva'im in the new dough and the Se'or combined.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (42):</span> The Yerushalmi says that Tevel mid'Oraisa is never Batel, but all agree that Tevel mid'Rabanan is Batel in the majority. Why do the Poskim say that even Tevel to Chalah of Chutz la'Aretz, which is mid'Rabanan, forbids any amount? Even in Eretz Yisrael, in the days of Ezra it was mid'Rabanan! Perhaps Chachamim were stringent like Torah law in Eretz Yisrael, in which the source is mid'Oraisa, but not in Chutz la'Aretz, for there there is no Torah source for Chalah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (ibid.):</span> If not, he separates one part in 48 of the entire dough, since it becomes totally Tevel. The same applies if the Se'or is exempt and the dough is obligated.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> L'Chatchilah one may not rely on this to put exempt Se'or in a Chayav dough. If he already did so, l'Chatchilah he may take from that dough and put in another dough to be for Se'or.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (16):</span> This is not l'Chatchilah, lest there be five Reva'im only with the Se'or, and he blesses l'Vatalah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah):</span> R. Peretz and Semag say that the same applies if the Se'or is exempt and the dough is Chayav. Orchos Chayim says that this is only b'Motza'ei Pesach, which is pressed circumstances.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Matzasi):</span> If one did not take Chalah from a meat pie, can one separate (from dough)? The meat has only the taste (of dough). Is this like Chayav on Patur? Maharam learned from our Mishnah, of putting (Se'or) from a Chulin dough into a Tevel dough. This is not like Chayav on Patur, for Ta'am k'Ikar (if an Isur can be tasted in a mixture, the mixture is forbidden) is mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WEARING THE 'BIGDEI KEHUNAH' FOR A 'SAFEK AVODAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara (76a-b) quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Shimon discusses the procedure for offering the Korban Asham and the Log Shemen of a Safek Metzora. The Gemara questions how the Log Shemen can be sprinkled out of doubt towards the Heichal; if the person is not a Metzora and the Log Shemen is a Nedavah, no Avodah may be done with it other than offering it on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara answers that 'he places it for the sake of firewood.' This refers to Rebbi Eliezer's view that whenever there is a doubt about whether a part of a Korban needs to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, one may place it there out of doubt and consider it fuel for the fire on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara means that when the Kohen sprinkles the oil for the Matan Sheva, he stipulates, 'If the person is a Metzora, then let this sprinkling be his Matan Sheva. If the person is not a Metzora and no other Avodah may be performed with this oil, then let this sprinkling not be considered an Avodah at all but rather it is as if I am spraying water into the air.' (See <b>TOSFOS</b> who explains the Gemara differently.)
</p><p>
The Acharonim point out that the Gemara seems to contradict the view of the <b>RAMBAM</b>, who rules (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:11) that a Kohen is permitted to wear the Avnet only while he performs the Avodah. Since the Avnet contains Kil'ayim, the Kohen may wear it only while he performs the Mitzvah of Avodah, which overrides the prohibition against wearing Kil'ayim. In the Gemara's case of Avodah performed for a Safek Metzora, how can the Kohen wear the Avnet while he performs the Avodah of sprinkling the oil? If the person is not a Metzora and the act the Kohen does is not an Avodah, the Kohen transgresses the prohibition against wearing Kil'ayim, since he is wearing the Avnet when he is not performing an Avodah. On the other hand, he cannot leave the Avnet off, because perhaps the person is a Metzora, and a Kohen is not allowed to perform the Avodah without all of the Bigdei Kehunah. (See <b>MIZBE'ACH MIKDASH</b>.)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>SHO'EL U'MESHIV</b> (2:3:9) addresses this question. He answers it based on a Halachah recorded by the <b>REMA</b> (OC 204:8). The Rema rules that if one is forced against his will to eat or drink, he does not recite a blessing over the food. The <b>MAGEN AVRAHAM</b> and <b>TAZ</b> question this ruling from the Halachah that one who is forced to eat on Yom Kippur because of illness <i>does</i> recite a blessing. There should be no difference between being forced to eat by illness (a condition brought about by Hash-m) and being forced to eat by another person. The Sho'el u'Meshiv answers that when the Torah requires that an ill person eat on Yom Kippur, the act of eating becomes a Mitzvah, and thus the person derives pleasure from the food. Consequently, he must recite a blessing. In contrast, when a person is forced by another person to eat, there is no Mitzvah involved and he derives no pleasure from the food, and therefore he does not recite a blessing.
</p><p>
This logic may be applied to the case of a Kohen who must perform an Avodah out of doubt. If the act indeed is an Avodah and a Mitzvah, then the Kohen derives pleasure from wearing the Bigdei Kehunah and the Kil'ayim in the Avnet, but it is permitted because he is doing a Mitzvah. If, on the other hand, the act is not an Avodah, then it is considered as though the Kohen was forced against his will to wear the Bigdei Kehunah because of the possibility that it was an Avodah. In such a case, no pleasure is derived from the clothing (just as one who is forced to eat derivces no pleasure from the food). One does not transgress the Isur of Kil'ayim when he does not derive any pleasure from the Kil'ayim.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>BEIS HA'LEVI</b> (1:3) gives an answer based on the Gemara (Berachos 25b, Kidushin 54a) that says that 'the Torah was not given to the Mal'achei ha'Shares.' It is not possible for the Kohen to wear the Bigdei Kehunah <i>only</i> at the moment that he performs the Avodah. There will always be a small amount of time before the Avodah and after the Avodah during which he is wearing the Bigdei Kehunah. It must be that the Torah permits the Kohen to wear the Bigdei Kehunah as long as he is involved in the Avodah and intends to perform the Avodah. He may continue wearing the Bigdei Kehunah after he performs one Avodah if he intends to perform another Avodah.
</p><p>
Accordingly, in the case of the Avodah done for the Safek Metzora, the Kohen dons the Bigdei Kehunah in order to perform another, definite Avodah. He may continue wearing the Bigdei Kehunah in order to perform the Safek Avodah. (According to this answer, the Kohen indeed may not don the Bigdei Kehunah to perform <i>only</i> a Safek Avodah. According to the answer of the Sho'el u'Meshiv, the Kohen <i>may</i> don the Bigdei Kehunah to perform only a Safek Avodah.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) OFFERING TWO LIMBS AT A TIME FROM A FORBIDDEN MIXTURE</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Eliezer who rules that in a case in which the limbs of valid Korbanos became mixed with the limbs of a blemished animal, if one of the heads was offered already, then the rest of the heads may be offered. In the Gemara, Rebbi Elazar states that Rebbi Eliezer permits offering the remaining, similar limbs only by offering two at a time, but not one at a time. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela Shenayim) explains the reasoning behind this. When two limbs are offered at the same time, one of them definitely is a permitted limb from a valid Korban. Since ('Migu') one of them definitely is permitted, one may assume that the second one is also permitted and that the forbidden limb was the first one that was offered earlier.
</p><p>
Does this reasoning apply in a case in which the limbs of valid Korbanos became mixed with the limbs of <i>two</i> blemished animals? In such a case, it does not suffice to offer two similar limbs at a time, because it is possible that both limbs are from the blemished animals! Will it suffice to offer three limbs at one time, or must one offer four limbs at one time (in order to ensure that an equal amount of permitted limbs are sacrificed together with the invalid ones)?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHACH</b> (YD 110:47) asserts that <i>four</i> limbs must be offered at one time. As Rashi explains, when there is only one prohibited item in the mixture, one may offer two limbs at a time because the principle of 'Migu' dictates that just as one limb is definitely permitted, the other is also permitted. However, when there are two prohibited items in the mixture, offering three limbs at a time does not suffice. Although it is true that one of the three is definitely permitted, the 'Migu' that one is permitted proves only that <i>one</i> other piece is permitted, but not that <i>two</i> other pieces are permitted; since there were two prohibited items in the mixture, there is a chance that <i>both</i> of the other two are the prohibited items. In order to apply the 'Migu,' there must be <i>two</i> pieces of definite Heter, and only then does the 'Migu' apply to determine that since two are definitely permitted, the other two are also permitted.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Shach rules that when two pieces of Isur become mixed with pieces of Heter and one piece was offered already, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that in order to permit offering the remaining pieces, <i>four</i> pieces must be offered on the Mizbe'ach at one time.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (YD 37:20) disagrees with the Shach. He asserts that there is no such logic that 'just as one limb is definitely permitted, the other is also permitted.' The Gemara cannot mean that the reasoning of 'Migu' permits offering the two pieces together. Rather, the reason why Rebbi Eliezer requires that two pieces be offered at one time is that the 'collective' Korban being offered on the Mizbe'ach must have the title of a permitted Korban, a Korban of Heter. As long as there is definitely a piece of Heter being offered, the offering has the title and status of Heter, and it is not consequential that the other piece might be Asur. Accordingly, even if there are two other pieces that might be Asur, the fact that one piece is definitely one of Heter gives the Korban the status of a permitted Korban and the mixture may be offered on the Mizbe'ach. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ARE WE CONCERNED FOR APPEARANCE? <span class='indexentry'>[Bitul: Isurim: appearance]</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 blood became mixed with water, if it still looks like blood, it is Kosher (for Zerikah).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	79a (Rava):</span> Bitul can depend on the majority, whether the minority can be tasted, or on whether it affects the appearance.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	Something in which (the taste is irrelevant, but) there is appearance (e.g. liquids poured into a Mikvah), it depends on appearance (an Isur that changes the appearance is not Batel).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bava Kama 101a - Question:</span> Do we say that wool increases in value due to ingredients (of dye)?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Mishnah #1):</span> If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Orlah, it must be burned. (This teaches that the appearance is significant.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (Rava):</span> Orlah is special. A Beraisa expounds 'Va'araltem Orlaso' to forbid dying with Orlah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Beraisa):</span> If a garment was dyed with peels of (fruit of) Shemitah, it must be burned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> Shemitah is special. 'It will be' teaches that the appearance counts.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Rava):</span> Mishnah #1 teaches that appearance is significant. Another Mishnah disagrees!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah #2):</span> If a Revi'is of blood was absorbed in a garment, (it is Tamei, but) it has Tum'as Ohel if a Revi'is of blood will come out through washing it. (The mere appearance of blood makes no difference!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Kahana):</span> (Normally, appearance is significant.) Mishnah #2 discusses Dam Tevusah (we are unsure if the blood came out before or after death). Its Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, so Chachamim were lenient.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nidah 62b (Mishnah):</span> If a Keli Cheres (earthenware) absorbed fluids of a Zav and fell into an oven, if the oven was ignited it is Tamei, for the fluids will ultimately leave the Cheres.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> If the fluids were Avos ha'Tum'ah (e.g. his urine), the oven is Tamei even if it was not ignited.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> Even then, the oven is Tamei only if it was ignited.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah #2):</span> Blood absorbed in a garment is Metamei b'Ohel only if a Revi'is will come out (easily) through laundering.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Kahana):</span> Mishnah #2 discusses Dam Tevusah. Its Tum'as Ohel is only mid'Rabanan, so Chachamim were lenient.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beitzah 37a (Mishnah):</span> If Leah lent to Sarah spices, water and salt for her dough, they may be taken only within the Techum of both of them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	38a - Question:</span> Why aren't the water and salt Batel to the dough?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. Aba):</span> Leah's property cannot be Batel to Sarah's property.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	38b - Rejection (R. Oshaya):</span> Min b'Eino Mino (something mixed with a different species) is Batel even regarding money!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</span> This is a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim (the Isur is permitted at another time or situation). It is not Batel even in 1000.</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 15:23):</span> If a potter used peels of Orlah to fire bowls or cups, one may not benefit from them, for Isurei Hana'ah made them new.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Radvaz:</span> If they became mixed with others, they are Batel in 201. They are no different than a garment dyed with Orlah peels, for appearance is significant.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ran (Avodah Zarah 22b DH Garsinan):</span> R. Eliezer permits benefit from bread baked using wood of idolatry after casting the value of the idolatry to the Dead Sea (Avodah Zarah 49b). Some say that his Heter is only for idolatry. Since idolatry what it is traded for, it is as if the Isur was removed. I say that the Heter is only for bread baked using wood of idolatry, since it is a light Isur. We cannot permit something dyed with Orlah, since it is as if the Isur itself is mixed in. Bava Kama proved this. We equated something dyed with Orlah to blood absorbed in a garment.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (79a DH Heicha):</span> If something does not depend on taste, rather, on appearance, such as Tevilah in a Mikveh, if Isur changed the appearance (it is not Batel).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Beitzah 39a DH Mishum):</span> Even though I explained that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim applies only to Min b'Mino, we are stringent about Techumim, as if it was Min b'Mino, since it is his property. Alternatively, since the dough is kneaded only through water, and the food is fixed only through spices, when he mixes them together, it is as if they are one Min.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Nidah 62b mi'Kulei):</span> In Bava Kama, Rav Kahana resolved the contradiction in Mishnayos. Here, only Reish Lakish holds like Rav Kahana. How can R. Yochanan answer? He must say that Tum'ah depends on what people care about. Since the blood does not come out easily, it is Batel. We forbid regarding Orlah, because he wants the appearance. There we answer according to Reish Lakish, i.e. even if you equate Tum'ah to Orlah, we can answer.</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 513:3):</span> If b'Shogeg, an egg laid on Yom Tov was cooked with meat or a food, if the rest is 60 times (the volume of) the egg it is all permitted, except for the egg. If the egg whitened the food, it is for appearance and taste, so it is not Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (4):</span> In YD 102, the Shulchan Aruch says that Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim does not apply to Min b'Eino Mino. Here, since it gives taste and appearance, it is like Min b'Mino.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (7):</span> The Shulchan Aruch connotes that if it is not Nikar (recognizable), but it can be tasted, it is Batel, even though it is added to the food for taste, just like water and salt added to a dough. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 102) connotes that an egg put in a chicken is not Batel only if it filled (the inside) and the appearance is Nikar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Machatzis ha'Shekel:</span> The Magen Avraham explains that the Shulchan Aruch rules unlike the second answer in Tosfos (Beitzah 39a). Even if something is added to fix the food, it is not considered Min b'Mino (unless it gives taste and appearance).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (9):</span> The Magen Avraham explains that it is not Batel only if it gives taste *and* appearance. The Shach and Gra in YD 102 explain that it is not Batel if it has one of these.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (16):</span> Also the Taz in YD and all the Acharonim hold that either one makes it like Min b'Mino. We follow them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (15):</span> The Pri Chodosh (YD 102:5) proved that an Isur that changed the appearance is not Batel only if it was added for appearance.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (17):</span> Even if the egg gives taste or appearance only with other things, since it is added for this purpose, it is considered Min b'Mino.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (YD 98:8):</span> If an Isur gives taste to a pot, and it is forbidden due to itself, it is not Batel even in 1000 if one can sense its taste.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (11):</span> In OC 513, the Shulchan Aruch rules that something added for taste and appearance is not Batel. Surely, here taste itself forbids. Normally, if the Isur is less than one part in 60 we *assume* that it cannot be tasted, but if one tastes it in the mixture, he may not eat it. If it changed the appearance, regarding Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, we are not lenient to taste the mixture, lest the Isur can be tasted.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishbetzos Zahav:</span> The Taz explains that since the egg gives appearance, we are concerned lest it gives taste. This is difficult.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (102:1):</span> If a Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, e.g. an egg laid on Yom Tov, was mixed Min b'Eino Mino, it is Batel in 60.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If it whitened the food, or it was put in the pot to fix the food, e.g. to fill a chicken, it is not Batel. See OC 513.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (5):</span> Since it is added for appearance, it is not Batel, like in OC 513.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (6):</span> The Rema teaches that not only when it whitened the food, and it is for appearance and taste, rather, even if it was put in to fix the food, also this is called Min b'Mino. Whenever the ingredients need the other, e.g. water and salt in a dough, this is Min b'Mino. Tosfos (Beitzah 39a) says so. The Rema discusses filling a chicken, for this is intact Isur, as opposed to what he says below (Sa'if 4) that taste is not considered Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim. The Rema learned from the Terumas ha'Deshen that anything to fix the food is like Mino. If one ingredient is Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim, it forbids the mixture until 1000 parts. We normally say that mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino one part in two is Batel, and Min b'Eino Mino requires 60. There, b'Eino Mino is more stringent, so something that fixes the food is like b'Eino Mino.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Chodosh (5):</span> Rava holds that letter of the law, appearance is significant. It is like the Isur itself. The Isur regarding Orlah is not due to a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. Rava explained that earlier Chachamim, who did not resolve whether or not appearance is significant, could explain the Isur of Orlah due to the verse. However, the contradiction suggests that appearance is significant only for Orlah! We reject this, and say that perhaps it is significant only for Torah laws. The Halachah follows R. Yochanan again Reish Lakish. He holds that the Mishnah discusses proper blood of a Mes, which is Tamei mid'Oraisa. The Rambam rules like R. Yochanan (Hilchos Tum'as Mes 3:10), yet he rules (Hilchos Gezeilah 3:10) that the question was not settled! Tosfos in Nidah answered that really, the question was not settled. The Gemara merely rejected the proof from the Mishnah. Rashi explained that Rava says that appearance is significant when taste does not apply. Rava himself was unsure if appearance forbids (when taste applies). He taught what he was sure about. Since the question was not settled, we are lenient about mid'Rabanan laws.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (6):</span> In OC, the Rema says that anything added for appearance or taste is like Min b'Mino. Appearance without Davar she'Yesh Lo Matirim does not forbid. In Bava Kama we did not resolve whether appearance is important. The Poskim (CM 363) say that it is a Safek. Rava distinguished between mid'Oraisa and mid'Rabanan, i.e. for Torah laws, appearance is significant. Perhaps R. Yochanan holds like this even for mid'Rabanan laws. This is only regarding Isurei Hana'ah. The Pri Chodosh erred.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (112:6):</span> Where people permit bread of Nochri bakers, this is even if it is coated with eggs.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some forbid if it is coated with eggs, for they are intact and they are not Batel to the bread, so this is Bishul Akum (food cooked by Nochrim).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (14):</span> The first opinion holds that since the eggs are only for appearance, appearance is insignificant, like Rashi says in Zevachim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishbetzos Zahav (100:1 DH Emnam Chazusa):</span> Minchas Kohen says that appearance is mid'Rabanan. This is only if it is intended to give appearance. The Pri Chodosh agrees. Minchas Yakov says that appearance applies only to garments, which are commonly dyed, but regarding food, if there is no taste, we are not concerned for appearance. Even mid'Rabanan, it is Batel. In Siman 102:1 and OC 513, we merely consider the egg to be intact (if it gives appearance). The Pri To'ar agreed.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (CM 363:11):</span> If Reuven had wool and dying ingredients, and Shimon stole them and dyed the wool with the ingredients, and the wool declined in price and it is worth no more than when it was white, Shimon is exempt from paying for the ingredients. If Reuven seized the money, he keeps it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	SMA (27):</span> The Gemara did not resolve whether appearance is significant, so it is a Safek whether it is as if he returned the theft. Therefore, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah (to take money from Shimon, Reuven must bring proof).</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) A MIXTURE OF 'PIGUL,' 'NOSAR,' AND 'TAMEI'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Reish Lakish who states that if one eats a dish containing a mixture of Pigul and Nosar (and Tamei, according to the text of our Gemara and some Rishonim), he is not punished with Malkus for transgressing these two (or three) prohibitions, although the mixture certainly is forbidden. Reish Lakish presumably is discussing a case in which the person received warning (Hasra'ah) against transgressing these prohibitions, and even so Reish Lakish rules that the sinner does not receive Malkus.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that three Halachos may be learned from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek (the warning given to a person who is about to commit a sin when it is not certain that the potential punishment will be applicable to his sin) is <i>not</i> a valid Hasra'ah.
</p><p>
What exactly is the case which Reish Lakish discusses, and what is the logic behind his ruling?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Iy Efshar) writes that the reason why this sinner does not receive Malkus is that he eats from a mixture of various prohibited foods, and there is no way to know whether the majority of food in his mouth is Pigul or Nosar. If it would be possible to know what the majority in his mouth is at any given moment, then he could be warned with a proper Hasra'ah and be punished with Malkus for transgressing that prohibition. However, since there is a doubt about which food is the majority in his mouth at any given moment, the witnesses who give him Hasra'ah have no definite knowledge of the exact Isur that he is transgressing.
</p><p>
Rashi clearly learns that the reason why Malkus cannot be administered is that the Hasra'ah in this case is a Hasra'as Safek.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH ha'Pigul) asks a number of questions on Rashi's explanation. Tosfos asks that according to Rashi's depiction of the case, the case does not entail a problem of Hasra'as Safek. Hasra'as Safek occurs when, at the time of the warning, there is a doubt about whether the person will <i>ever</i> commit the Isur by doing the sin he intends to do. Although he eventually commits the Isur, at the time of the Hasra'ah it was not known that he would ever do so. In this case, however, the witnesses clearly see that he is about to transgress the prohibitions of Pigul and Nosar; the only doubt is <i>when</i> exactly he will transgress these prohibitions. The witnesses have no doubt that if he does what he intends to do, he definitely will transgress all of these prohibitions. When the witnesses warn him not to do all of these Isurim, that is a proper Hasra'ah and not Hasra'as Safek.
</p><p>
Tosfos instead explains that the case of the Gemara is one in which there are two separate food items. One is a mixture of two k'Zeisim of Pigul and one k'Zayis of Nosar, and the other is a mixture of two k'Zeisim of Nosar and one k'Zayis of Pigul. It is unknown now which mixture is which. When the sinner takes the first mixture in order to eat it, the witnesses warn him not to eat Pigul. This obviously is a Hasra'as Safek, since this mixture might be the one that contains a Rov of Nosar, in which case the person will not transgress the prohibition of Pigul for eating the mixture, but rather that of Nosar (since the Pigul is Batel to the Nosar). Even when the person proceeds to eat the second mixture and the same warning is given not to eat Pigul, there is still no certainty that he is eating the mixture that contains the majority of Pigul, since the second mixture that he eats might be the one with a majority of Nosar. The Hasra'ah in this case is a Hasra'as Safek, because there is a doubt at the time of each warning whether the person will commit the Isur of eating Pigul through his action.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos gives a third explanation, but Tosfos' intention is not clear. The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> and <b>BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH</b> explain that Tosfos is suggesting that the case is one in which the person first set aside two k'Zeisim of one Isur, such as Pigul. He then took another four k'Zeisim from two types of Isurim (such as two k'Zeisim each from Pigul and Nosar) and mixed them together in a separate bowl. He then decided to eat all of this in two stages; in each stage, he intended to eat one k'Zayis of the definite Pigul with two k'Zeisim from the second mixture. He was warned before his first meal that he was transgressing the Isur of Pigul, and he was warned before his second meal that he was transgressing the Isur of Nosar. In both situations, there is a doubt about what the Rov is that he is eating. His definite Pigul might be mixed with a Rov of Nosar (from the mixture of four k'Zeisim that he made), or it might be mixed with more Pigul, creating a Rov of Pigul. In any case, each Hasra'ah that he receives is a Hasra'as Safek. (This explanation in Tosfos maintains that giving the same Hasra'ah for the same Isur in both stages of the case would not entail a Hasra'as Safek.)
</p><p>
The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> explains that Tosfos is suggesting a different case. The person takes two k'Zeisim of one type of Isur, and he mixes it with four k'Zeisim of another type of Isur, and then he divides the mixture in half. The rest of the case is as described above. The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> says that most commentaries understand that this is the intention of Tosfos. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ONE PROHIBITION ANNULS ANOTHER</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Reish Lakish who states that if one eats a dish containing a mixture of Pigul and Nosar he is not punished with Malkus for transgressing these two prohibitions, although the mixture certainly is forbidden, because 'each type annuls the other.' <b>RASHI</b> (see previous Insight) explains that Reish Lakish refers to a case in which a k'Zayis of Pigul became mixed with a k'Zayis of Nosar, and the person ate the entire mixture. The reason why he does not receive Malkus is that he eats from a mixture of various prohibited foods, and there is no way to know whether the majority of food in his mouth is Pigul or Nosar at any given moment. If it would be possible to know what the majority in his mouth is at any given moment, then he could be warned with a proper Hasra'ah and be punished with Malkus for transgressing that prohibition. However, since there is a doubt about which food is the majority in his mouth at any given moment, the witnesses who give him Hasra'ah have no definite knowledge of the exact Isur that he is transgressing.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that one of the things we learn from Reish Lakish's statement is that items of Isur can be Mevatel each other. In this case, for example, when there is a majority of Pigul in the person's mouth and a minority of Nosar, the Pigul is Mevatel the Nosar. The only reason why he does not receive Malkus for the Pigul is because the Hasra'ah is a Hasra'as Safek.
</p><p>
According to the principle that one Isur is Mevatel another, what is the law in a case in which there are <i>three</i> different types of Isur mixed together, such as Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei (this is according to the Girsa which omits the word 'Tamei' from the text of Reish Lakish's statement)? Since there are two other Isurim in each mouthful to be Mevatel the third Isur, the majority should annul the minority. Consequently, the Pigul and Nosar should be Mevatel the Tamei, the Nosar and Tamei should be Mevatel the Pigul, and the Pigul and Tamei should be Mevatel the Nosar, and the entire mixture should be permitted, l'Chatchilah, to eat! Obviously, this is not the Halachah; the mixture certainly remains forbidden. It is illogical to permit the mixture because there is an additional prohibition in it. Rather, only an item of <i>Heter</i> can be Mevatel an Isur and make it permissible like itself; an Isur cannot make another Isur become permitted. Why, then, does Reish Lakish teach that an Isur can be Mevatel another Isur with regard to Malkus?
</p><p>
ANSWER: Although it is true that a majority of one Isur cannot be Mevatel another Isur to make it permitted, it <i>can</i> be Mevatel the <i>specific status</i> of the other Isur, such that it no longer retains the specific title of Nosar, for example. It retains, however, its general state of being prohibited. Thus, Hasra'ah against eating the 'annulled' Isur is not effective, because Hasra'ah must be given for a specific type of Isur, the identity of which is clear. An Isur whose specific identity became annulled due to Bitul in a majority of other Isurim is not subject to Hasra'ah. Accordingly, Malkus cannot be given in the case of three Isurim that became mixed together, but, nonetheless, the mixture remains prohibited to eat. (See <b>VA'YIZRA YITZCHAK</b> 98:9.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'NOSAR' THAT TURNS INTO 'PIGUL'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara derives three Halachos from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek is <i>not</i> a valid Hasra'ah.
</p><p>
Rashi, in his comments on the second Halachah implied by Reish Lakish's statement (that a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah), infers that if the witnesses would know for certain that the person is placing into his mouth a k'Zayis comprised of a majority of Pigul and a minority of Nosar, then they would be able to give a proper Hasra'ah (and Malkus would be given). Since the witnesses do not know what quantities of each Isur are in the k'Zayis that he is placing into his mouth at this moment, the Hasra'ah is only a Hasra'as Safek.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> questions this explanation. Even if it is known that the k'Zayis that he places into his mouth contains a majority of Pigul and a minority of Nosar, how can Bitul cause the Nosar to join the Pigul to form a k'Zayis of Isur, for which the person will receive Malkus for eating? The end result remains <i>less</i> than a k'Zayis of Pigul and less than a k'Zayis of annulled Nosar, and a person does not receive Malkus for eating less than a k'Zayis of Isur!
</p><p>
Some Acharonim (see <b>SHA'AREI YOSHER</b> 3:15) understand that Rashi and Tosfos disagree about the following point. Rashi maintains that Bitul causes the minority to acquire the status of the majority. Consequently, the minority of Nosar actually becomes Pigul, as it were. Tosfos, on the other hand, maintains that Bitul merely removes the specific status of an item (such as when an item of Isur becomes mixed with a majority of Heter, the majority removes the status of Isur from the item), but it does not give a new status to the minority (such as giving the minority of Nosar the status of Pigul).
</p><p>
The actual function of Bitul is discussed at length by the Acharonim. Most Poskim (see <b>ONEG YOM TOV</b> OC #4) maintain that Bitul b'Rov cannot give a new status to the minority. One practical question which depends on this issue is a case of five Matzos that were not baked Lishmah that became mixed with ten Matzos that were baked Lishmah. May all fifteen Matzos be used for the Mitzvah? The <b>MESHIV DAVAR</b> (#34) rules that all of them may be used. Proof for his ruling is cited from Rashi here, who maintains that Bitul b'Rov causes the minority to acquire the status of the majority. Thus, the five Matzos that were not baked Lishmah become Batel to the ten Matzos that were baked Lishmah and acquire the status of having been baked Lishmah. Most Poskim, however, disagree with the Meshiv Davar. How do they answer the proof from the words of Rashi?
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>SHA'AREI YOSHER</b> (3:16) points out that the case of the Gemara here is different, and Rashi's words here do not prove that in other cases of Bitul the minority acquires the Halachic status of the majority. In the case of the Gemara here, there definitely is a k'Zayis of prohibited food in the mixture; Bitul is not needed in order to reach a k'Zayis. Rather, Bitul is needed for purposes of Hasra'as Vadai. For this, Rov may suffice.
</p><p>
This is consistent with what we explained earlier (see previous Insight). The concept of 'Isurin Mevatlin Zeh Es Zeh' means that the specific identity, relevant to whether a proper Hasra'ah may be given and Malkus administered, is annulled, or 'blurred,' but the Isur remains.
</p><p>
Accordingly, there is no proof from Rashi here that Rov can give a new status to the minority such that the minority would turn into the type that comprises the majority to complete a k'Zayis. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) THE INFERENCE THAT REISH LAKISH MAINTAINS THAT 'HASRA'AS SAFEK' IS A VALID 'HASRA'AH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara derives three Halachos from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek is <i>not</i> a valid Hasra'ah.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara need to infer the second law from the words of Reish Lakish here, when Reish Lakish elsewhere (see, for example, Makos 16a) explicitly states that a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah? (<b>SHIVAS TZIYON</b> #88)
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>SHIVAS TZIYON</b> answers as follows. The <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shevu'os 5:2) writes that the witnesses must include mention of the specific Lav in their Hasra'ah. When they are not sure which Lav the sinner is about to transgress, their Hasra'ah is not a valid Hasra'ah, <i>according to all opinions</i>. The argument about whether Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah or not applies only in a case in which the witnesses know which Lav the sinner is potentially going to transgress, but they are not sure, at the time of the Hasra'ah, about whether the sinner is actually transgressing the Lav.
</p><p>
The Gemara here does not refer to the normal case of Hasra'as Safek, in which the witnesses know the Lav that the sinner is about to transgress, but they are unsure about whether he is actually transgressing it or not. In the case of the Gemara here, the sinner is certainly going to transgress an Isur. However, the doubt is what Isur he is transgressing -- the Isur of Pigul or the Isur of Nosar. This type of Hasra'as Safek is not the same type that Reish Lakish discusses elsewhere. The Gemara here is teaching that everyone, including Rebbi Yochanan (Makos 16a) -- who maintains that the normal type of Hasra'as Safek <i>is</i> a valid Hasra'ah, agrees that this type of Hasra'as Safek, where an Isur is <i>certainly</i> being transgressed but the exact Isur is subject to doubt, is not considered a valid Hasra'ah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CAN BITUL MAKE SOMETHING CONSIDERED LISHMAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Bitul b'Rov :Lishmah: Tzitzis]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> If one ate Pigul and Nosar (and Tamei - some texts omit this) that were mixed together, he is exempt. Surely, one of them was the majority, and the other is Batel.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> If an Isur gives taste to a food of a larger volume than itself, it does not forbid it (to Mechayev lashes) mid'Oraisa (Reish Lakish's law applies even when the minority gives taste),</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	80a (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</span> If a small amount of water fell into a flask with Mei Chatas (water on which ashes of the Parah Adumah were put), for every sprinkling done from this flask (to be Metaher), two Haza'os must be done (this will be explained);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	Chachamim disqualify (the water may not be used).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	Chachamim hold that (even if) Yeish Bilah (we assume that one liquid totally disperses amidst another), there is a Shi'ur (minimum required quantity) for Haza'ah, and we cannot combine Mei Chatas from different Haza'os to comprise the Shi'ur;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechoros 22a (Reish Lakish):</span> If one buys brine from an Am ha'Aretz (who is not trustworthy about Taharah), he may do Hashakah (connect it to a Mikvah) to be Metaher it, in any case;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span>	If the majority is water, Hashakah is Metaher water. If the majority is brine, brine is not Mekabel Tum'ah, and the water is Batul in the majority.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yirmeyah):</span> This is Metaher the brine to use for a dip (without adding water). If he will (add water, e.g.) cook it in a pot, and altogether there will be more water than brine, this arouses the Tum'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 23a (Rav Chisda):</span> If a Neveilah became mixed with a majority of Shechutos (slaughtered animals), it is Batel, for a Shechutah cannot become (an Av ha'Tum'ah, like) a Neveilah. (This is like Min b'Eino Mino.) If a Shechutah became mixed with a Neveilah, it is not Batel, for a Neveilah can become (Tahor) like a Shechutah, i.e. when it rots (so this is like Min b'Mino).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Chanina):</span> If the Batel (minority) can become like the Mevatel (majority), it is not Batel; if the Batel cannot become like the Mevatel, it is Batel</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	These teachings are not like Chachamim, who say that Min b'Mino is (always) Batel. They are not like R. Yehudah, who says that Bitul depends on the appearance (22a; Dam Par cannot Mevatel Dam Sa'ir, even though neither can become like the other). Min b'Mino is never Batel, whether or not one can become like the other! They are like R. Chiya;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Chiya):</span> If Shechutos and Neveilos became mixed, one of these (if it is the majority) is Mevatel the other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Chiya is unlike Chachamim, who say that Min b'Mino is (always) Batel. He is unlike R. Yehudah, who says that Min b'Mino is not (i.e. never) Batel!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> He is like R. Yehudah. Really, R. Yehudah says that Min b'Mino is not Batel only when one can become like the other, but if one cannot become like the other, there is Bitul;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span>	Rav Chisda says that it depends upon the Mevatel (if it cannot become like the Batel, there is Bitul). R. Chanina says that it depends upon the Batel (if it cannot become like the Mevatel, there is Bitul).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> If two Menachos became mixed together before Kemitzah, if one can take a Kometz from each of them by itself they are Kesherim. If not, they are Pesulim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Observation:</span> After taking one Kometz, the rest of that Minchah is Shirayim. (Surely, there are pieces of the Tevel (the Minchah from which Kometz was not taken) amidst a majority of Shirayim. Since both are Kesherim, this shows that the pieces are not Batel. If they were Batel, the Tevel would be considered Chaser before Kemitzah!) This is like R. Yehudah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Rav Chisda holds that since the Mevatel cannot become like the Batel, there should be Bitul. The second Minchah should be Pasul. He must say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</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'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	9b - Question:</span> If he did not do Chavatah, why it is Kosher? Pasul Sechach joins with Kosher Sechach!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> We must say that he did Chavatah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	Nidah 71a (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</span> If a woman was about to give birth, and a Revi'is came out, it is Metamei due to Kesem (surely, at least a drop left the Makor before death).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span>	R. Yosi says, therefore, it is not Metamei b'Ohel (for there is not a full Revi'is).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Sukah 1:14):</span> Rashi says that 'Chavtah' is lowering the vine and mixing it with the Kosher Sechach. The vine is Batel in a majority of Kosher Sechach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Sukah 5:16):</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='desl2'>	(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'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (78a DH ha'Pigul):</span> A minority Batel in a majority does not join with it to complete the Shi'ur (to be liable). Heter does not join Isur, so all the more so Isur does not join  Isur!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (79b DH Tanan):</span> It is a stringency mid'Rabanan to disqualify Mei Chatas in which a drop of water fell. Mid'Oraisa, it is Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Or Some'ach (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:11):</span> If a string that was not spun l'Shem Tzitzis were mixed with strings spun Lishmah, Acharonim were unsure if it is Batel and one may use them for Tzitzis. Even though we know that one of them was not spun Lishmah. The general rule of Bitul is that it is as if it is not there. It does not join. There is an awesome proof from the end of Nidah. (There is also a proof from Rashi Sukah 47b DH sheha'Yayin. If a snake drank from Nesachim and put in venom, the Kohen will not pour the full Shi'ur of wine. We do not say that through Bitul, it joins to comprise the Shi'ur!) Here also, it is as if the string not Lishmah is not here. Bitul applies only when the Heter does not require an action. E.g. if Neveilah is Batel in pieces of Heter, even though Shechitah requires intent (at least to cut), the reason it is Neveilah goes away, and it is not considered Neveilah nor slaughtered. It is like Stam food. Neveilah can become Shechutah, i.e. if it spoils and a Ger (Toshav) would not eat it (Menachos 23). Even though it does not (truly) become Shechutah, it is not Neveilah. Here, we cannot say that through Bitul the string is Kosher for Tzitzis and it is as if it was spun Lishmah. However, if a little water fell into Chatas, the water may not to be used. Tosfos says that this is a stringency of Parah Adumah, but mid'Oraisa the water is Batel in the majority. Mei Chatas require an action of Kidush (putting the ashes on) l'Shem Mei Chatas. How can we say that through Bitul, it is as if this was done?! If ashes of the Parah Adumah were mixed with plain ashes, we may not be Mekadesh with them. I can explain that this is because the ashes must come from a cow that was burned and done l'Shem Mei Chatas. Bitul cannot cause that the plain ashes were l'Shem Mei Chatas. Tosfos must say that this is a stringency of Mei Chatas. We can say that mid'Oraisa it is Kosher due to the majority. We assume that what is sprinkled came from the majority, and not from the drop of plain water mixed in. However, we cannot say so if Yesh Bilah and sprinklings do not join.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> Through Bitul, it is as if the minority is not here. This does not help for something that requires a Shi'ur. If there is Bilah, part of the Shi'ur is missing, if sprinklings do not join. Based on what I said, since Kidush was not done, even if Ein Bilah and there is no required Shi'ur, Bitul did not make the water Mei Chatas, so it is like a Safek Kavu'a (an even doubt. We do not say that what we take comes from the majority). The Rambam says that Kavu'a does not apply to something that is not recognizable, because mid'Oraisa even living animals are Batel. However, when there is no Bitul, we do not distinguish whether or not it is recognizable. Therefore, regarding a string not spun Lishmah mixed with strings spun Lishmah, since Bitul does not make it as if it were spun Lishmah, we do not say that what is taken came from the majority, for we take from Kavu'a.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Bechoros 22a DH Aval):</span> If brine is mixed with a majority of water, this is Metamei the brine.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (Menachos 23b DH v'Rebbi):</span> if each of them could Mevatel the other, whether or not it can become like the other, R. Chiya would have said that Min b'Mino is Batel, without specifying Neveilos and slaughtered animals.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Oneg Yom Tov (4):</span> Bitul removes an Isur, but does not make something considered a Kosher Korban. There is no proof from ashes of Parah Adumah. Tosfos says that this is a mere stringency. There is no proof from R. Eliezer who permits using it, for perhaps he requires sprinkling twice (so surely one sprinkling was with Kosher Mei Chatas).A proof is from Menachos 23. We challenged the opinion that there is no Bitul when the Mevatel can become like the Batel. A Mishnah says that if two Menachos became mixed, if one can take a Kometz from each of them by itself they are Kesherim. The Tevel is not Batel in a majority of Shirayim, even though Shirayim cannot become Tevel! Rashi asked that this is difficult also for the opinion that there is no Bitul when the Batel can become like the Mevatel. Since there is Bitul, the Tevel Minchah has extra flour! Rashi answered that through Bitul, it is as if the Shirayim are not there, so there is no extra flour. Even though the Shirayim are Batel in the Tevel, it is not considered that there is extra flour.  The Batel is not considered totally like the Mevatel, only the Isur of the Batel vanishes. Also when we say that Isur becomes Heter, this means only that the Isur goes away. However, Tosfos (22 DH v'Hen) challenged Rashi from the Mishnah of a Kometz mixed with a Minchah of a thicker consistency. The Kometz disqualifies the Mishnah, because the Minchah has extra oil. This shows that the Batel becomes totally like the Mevatel. Also Rashi said so at the beginning of the Sugya, that Neveilah and Shechutah are not Batel in each other, i.e. if later one of them touched Terumah. We do not burn the Terumah. It is considered Safek, for perhaps the Shechutah touched it, i.e. and it was not Batel in the Neveilah. According to the opinion that it depends on the Batel, the Shechutah is Batel in the Neveilah, and we would burn Terumah! However, perhaps Rashi holds that Shechutah does not become like Neveilah even after Bitul. R. Chanina says that we burn Terumah because we attribute that it touched the majority, i.e. a Neveilah. Rav Chisda holds that there is no Bitul, so it is like an Isur Kavu'a. Also Tosfos says that it is considered a Safek Kavu'a only when there is no Bitul. However, in Bechoros Rashi connotes that something Batel becomes like the Mevatel in every way. If it itself does not receive Tum'ah, through Bitul it can receive Tum'ah. Tosfos disagrees, and says that surely the brine is not Mekabel Tum'ah. If so, strings Lo Lishmah mixed with strings Lishmah may not be used for Tzitzis.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Ha'aros on Shirei Berachah (YD 279:3):</span> According to the Rishonim in Sukah who say that through Chavatah the Pasul Sechach becomes Kosher and one may sit under it, especially according to the Bach, Bitul helps also for Lishmah. However, we can say that Sukah does not need Lishmah. It needs only l'Shem shade, and perhaps Chavatah fulfills this! In any case through Bitul, the Pasul Sechach becomes Kosher. However, Sukah 24 shows that not all the Sechach needs to be put Lishmah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	Note - it seems that this should say 15a, in which Beis Hillel say that it suffices to put every other board Lishmah.</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 11:1):</span> The strings for Tzitzis must be spun Lishmah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Akiva Eiger (1):</span> If strings not spun l'Shem Tzitzis were mixed with strings spun Lishmah, see 626:3 regarding whether one may use them for Tzitzis. Perhaps this is Davar sheb'Minyan (something important that is sold by number; it is never Batel).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (626:1):</span> If a Sukah has more shade than sun only with (connected branches of) a tree, one must lower the branches and mix them with the Sechach so they will not be recognized, and the Sechach will be the majority and be Mevatel the branches.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>5) THE GEMARA'S CHALLENGE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 'BITUL B'ROV'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara explains that there is a difference between a mixture of two items that are of different types (Min b'she'Eino Mino) and a mixture of two items that are the same type (Min b'Mino). A mixture of two different types of items, where one is permitted and one is forbidden, retains the identity (and status) of the forbidden type if the taste of that item is discernible in the mixture. In contrast, a mixture of two of the same type of items, where one is permitted and one is forbidden, retains the identity (and status) of the food which constitutes the majority of the mixture.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why this is so; why should a mixture of Min b'Mino not be judged by its taste, just as a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino is judged by its taste? If the forbidden item in the mixture of Min b'Mino gives its taste to the mixture, then it should prohibit the mixture even when there is a Rov of Heter. Even though it is not possible to discern the taste of the forbidden item in the mixture of Min b'Mino because it tastes exactly the same as the permitted item, <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Nisha'er) explains that it is possible to determine how much of the forbidden item would give taste if it were a different type (or mixed with a different type). If a discernible taste is the standard to forbid a mixture, then why does the Halachah permit the mixture based on Rov?
</p><p>
The Gemara's discussion seems difficult to understand. The concepts of Nosen Ta'am and Bitul b'Rov are mentioned numerous times throughout the Gemara with regard to many other Torah laws, and nowhere else is the Gemara bothered by the application of the principle of Bitul b'Rov. Why specifically here does the Gemara challenge the foundations of this principle?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (Hashmatos #1) answers in the name of <b>RABEINU SHMUEL</b> that the Gemara is bothered by the statement of Reish Lakish, who says that the principle of Bitul b'Rov exempts a person who eats a mixture of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei (see previous Insight) from the punishment of Malkus. The Gemara here is asking that in a case of a mixture of different types of Isur, the Halachah should be more stringent, since there is a precedent for setting aside the principle of Bitul b'Rov, such as in cases of blood of Kodshim and things that are offered on the Mizbe'ach (see 81a). The Gemara is asking why the principle of Bitul b'Rov is not set aside in this case as well.
</p><p>
(b) The Shitah Mekubetzes cites a different explanation in the name of his teacher ('Mori'). He explains that the source for the principle of Bitul b'Rov is the verse, 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' (Shemos 23:2). The verse teaches that we follow the majority to decide the law, and, similarly, in a case of a mixture, we say that the majority of permitted food annuls the minority of forbidden food. However, the verse does not refer to cases in which the determination of the majority is not based on actual mass but rather on appearance or taste (such as in the case of the Mishnah here, and the case of the Mikvah later, and Reish Lakish's case in which the two components are both forbidden). Since the Gemara is discussing atypical cases, it asks why the rule of Bitul b'Rov is followed in these cases as well. This explanation is given by the <b>MEROMEI SADEH</b> as well.
</p><p>
(c) The Shitah Mekubetzes suggests a third explanation. The verse of 'Acharei Rabim l'Hatos' teaches that Bitul b'Rov changes the status of the minority to that of the Rov. For example, in a mixture of pieces of meat, where most are permitted and some are forbidden, all of the meat may be eaten, because Bitul b'Rov teaches that the forbidden meat becomes permitted meat. However, Kodshim are different. Even if one container of Kodshim blood was mixed with two containers of ordinary blood, it is logical to say that if the blood from every container was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, then the owner of the Korban achieved his atonement, because the blood from his Korban certainly was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. This blood of Kodshim never acquires the status of ordinary blood. The Gemara, therefore, is asking that the law in the case of Kodshim does not have to be the same as the law in the case of other Isurim. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE LAW OF 'CHAZUSA'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that the rule of 'Bitul b'Rov' does not apply in every case of a minority of Isur that became mixed with a majority of Heter. In a case in which the appearance ('Chazusa') of the Isur is noticeable in the mixture, the Isur does not become Batel in the Rov of Heter.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Heicha) explains that the law of 'Chazusa' applies only when the taste of the mixture is not relevant, such as in the case of a foreign liquid that fell into the waters of a Mikvah. In the case of a Mikvah, if the appearance of the water has changed due to the foreign liquid that fell into it, the Mikvah is disqualified even though the majority of liquid in the Mikvah is water. In contrast, in cases of Isurim, even if the Isur gives color to the Heter, since the taste of the Heter is the majority, Rov permits the mixture.
</p><p>
What is Rashi's logic for differentiating between these cases? If the appearance of the mixture affects the application of Bitul b'Rov when the taste is not relevant, why should it not affect the application of Bitul b'Rov when the taste is relevant? If the appearance makes it as if the prohibited minority is present and cannot be annulled, then what difference does it make whether the taste is that of Isur or Heter? (<b>SEFAS EMES</b>)
</p><p>
ANSWER: Rashi maintains that the law of 'Chazusa' applies only when the taste of the mixture is not relevant because he understands the concept of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' in the manner explained by the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (as cited by the Rashba in Chulin 98b). The Ra'avad explains that the principle of 'Ta'am k'Ikar' -- when the taste of an item enters a second item, it is considered as if the item itself has entered the second item -- is based on a verse in Iyov (12:11): 'v'Chech Ochel Yit'am Lo' -- 'and the palate tastes food for itself.' This verse teaches that the importance of food is its taste. Accordingly, if the taste of the Isur is recognizable, then the prohibited food item is not Batel because its importance is still present.
</p><p>
Since the important element of food is its taste and not its appearance, even if the appearance of the Isur is still present in the mixture but its taste is not recognizable, it is Batel. In contrast, with regard to a Mikvah -- where taste is irrelevant, since the Mikvah is not a food or drink but rather a means of purification -- the appearance alone of an ineligible liquid disqualifies the Mikvah, even if there is a Rov of valid water.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> asserts that Rashi's statement, that the law of 'Chazusa' does not apply to matters involving taste, applies only to the status of the mixture mid'Oraisa. That is, mid'Oraisa the Isur is Batel as long as there is a Rov of Heter. However, mid'Rabanan the mixture is still prohibited.
</p><p>
A source for this Isur d'Rabanan is mentioned by the <b>REMA</b> (YD 102:1). The Rema states that if one uses an egg of Isur to give a white color to a food, the prohibited egg is not Batel and the food is prohibited. The Sefas Emes understands that the Rema rules that the food is prohibited because of the Chazusa, appearance, of the egg.
</p><p>
The <b>MINCHAS YAKOV</b> (to <b>TORAS CHATAS</b> #74) understands that there is an argument between Rashi and the Rema. According to Rashi, the appearance does not prohibit the food at all, even mid'Rabanan. According to the Rema, the food is Asur mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
However, there seems to be a basic difference between the case of the Rema and the case of the Gemara. In the case of the Rema, the egg was put into the food in order to whiten it and make it more appetizing to the palate. This is similar to an actual taste of an Isur that becomes mixed with a permitted food. In such a case, mid'Oraisa the Isur is Batel, even though it gives appearance, because the taste is the most important element of the food, and the taste of the egg is Batel b'Rov. However, according to the Rema, since the appearance in this case is also an important element of the prohibited food item, it prohibits the mixture at least mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
This case is different from the case that Rashi discusses. Rashi discusses a case of a colored food that accidentally fell into a pot and changed the color of the entire mixture. The law is that even the taste of a prohibited food item prohibits a mixture ('Ta'am k'Ikar') only when it gives a good taste to the mixture, and not when it gives a bad taste. Similarly, Rashi here maintains that the appearance that the prohibited food item gives to the mixture does not prohibit the mixture because the specific appearance that it gives does not enhance the food at all. If the taste of the Isur does not prohibit the mixture unless it enhances the taste of the mixture, then certainly the appearance of the Isur does not prohibit the mixture if it does not make the food look more appealing. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE PROOF THAT HILLEL MAINTAINS 'EIN MITZVOS MEVATLOS ZO ES ZO'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara states that Hillel is the Tana who maintains that 'Ein Mitzvos Mevatlos Zo Es Zo' -- Mitzvos do not cancel each other. The Gemara proves this from the fact that on Pesach night, Hillel would eat the Matzah, Maror, and Korban Pesach together. He was not concerned that the taste of the Maror would negate the taste of the Matzah and invalidate the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of eating Matzah. It must be that he maintains that Mitzvos do not cancel each other.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Pesachim (115a, DH Ela Amar) asks that this particular practice of Hillel does not seem to be conclusive proof that Hillel maintains that Mitzvos do not cancel each other. Perhaps Hillel indeed maintains that Mitzvos normally <i>do</i> cancel each other. The Mitzvos of Pesach night are different, because the Torah explicitly instructs that on Pesach night one should take all of these items and eat them together: 'Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu' (Bamidbar 9:11). In all other cases, however, Hillel indeed may maintain that Mitzvos cancel each other. How, then, does the Gemara intend to prove from this practice of Hillel on Pesach night that Hillel maintains that Mitzvos do not cancel each other? (See a similar question in the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RASHBA</b>, <b>RABEINU DAVID</b>, and <b>RAN</b> in Pesachim, and see the footnotes on the Rashba for why this is <i>not</i> the same question as Tosfos asks.)
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Pesachim answers that Hillel's position is evident from the fact that he ate these items together at the Pesach Seder <i>every year</i>. If Hillel was of the opinion that in general Mitzvos are Mevatel each other, then the aforementioned verse teaches that one is <i>permitted</i> (but not obligated) to eat the Maror with the Matzah and Korban Pesach, and that on Pesach night these Mitzvos do not cancel each other. From the fact that Hillel conducted himself like this every year shows that he maintained not only that one is permitted to eat the Maror, Matzah, and Korban Pesach together, but that this is the preferred way to perform the Mitzvos. Since he learns that the verse of 'Al Matzos' teaches the preferable way to perform the Mitzvos, it must be that he maintains that in general Mitzvos do <i>not</i> cancel each other, and the verse is adding that on Pesach night, one should perform the Mitzvos in this manner l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> gives a different answer. It is clear that the Maror and Korban Pesach should be eaten together. There is a different verse with regard to Matzah which states, 'b'Erev Tochlu Matzos' (Shemos 12:18), implying that the Matzah should be eaten by itself. Hillel ate only the Matzah of the Mitzvah on Pesach night (as stated explicitly by the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> in Pesachim there). Accordingly, if he maintained that the Mitzvos are Mevatel each other, then he would have eaten the Matzah separately, in order to fulfill the verse with regard to Matzah. Since he ate the Matzah together with the other items, it is apparent that he maintained that Mitzvos are not Mevatel each other.
</p><p>
(c) The Sefas Emes suggests another explanation. The word 'Al' usually means 'on top of,' but it also can mean 'next to' (see Bamidbar 2:20, for example). One who maintains that Mitzvos are normally Mevatel each other still could rule like Hillel, but he would come to a different conclusion. He would say that the verse of 'Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu' means that one should eat all of these things 'next to' each other, meaning in close proximity in time, within the time of 'Kedei Achilas Peras' of each other, but not simultaneously, since eating them all at once would cause them to be Mevatel each other. From Hillel's practice of eating them all together, it is evident that he maintained that Mitzvos normally are not Mevatel each other. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> ARE MITZVOS MEVATEL EACH OTHER? <span class='indexentry'>[Mitzvos:Bitul]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Elazar):</span> Just like Mitzvos do not nullify each other, Isurim do not nullify each other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	We learn from Hillel that Mitzvos do not nullify each other;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> Hillel used to eat Korban Pesach and Matzah and bitter herbs wrapped together - 'Al Matzos u'Morerim Yochluhu' (all are Mitzvos. No one is Mevatel another.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 115a (Rav Mesharshiya brei d'Rav Noson):</span> Hillel had a tradition that after the Churban one should not eat Matzah and Maror wrapped together. Since Matzah is a Mitzvah mid'Oraisa and Maror is only mid'Rabanan, Maror is Mevatel Matzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span>	Even the opinion that Mitzvos do not Mevatel each other says this only when both are mid'Oraisa or both are mid'Rabanan. However, if one is mid'Oraisa and the other is mid'Rabanan, the mid'Rabanan is Mevatel the mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Who says that Mitzvos are not Mevatel each other?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Hillel says so. He used to wrap them (Pesach, Matzah and Maror) together and eat them to fulfill 'Al Matzos u'Morerim Yochluhu.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yochanan):</span> Hillel's colleagues disagree:</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	(Beraisa) Suggestion:</span> Perhaps one wraps them together and eats them like Hillel did!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> 'Al Matzos u'Morerim Yochluhu.' (It could have said 'Yochlu'. Rather, it says Yochluhu, and we read this 'Yochal Hu',) one may even eat each by itself.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (Rav Ashi):</span> If so, why does it say *even*? (This connotes that one may eat them together if he wants!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Ashi):</span> Rather, the Beraisa means as follows:</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> Perhaps one *must* wrap them together like Hillel did to be Yotzei!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> 'Al Matzos u'Morerim Yochluhu' - one may even eat each by itself.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Conclusion:</span> The Halachah was not fixed like Hillel, nor like Chachamim. (Nowadays) we bless Al Achilas Matzah, eat Matzah, bless Al Achilas Maror, eat Maror, and then eat Korech (both wrapped together) without a Berachah, to commemorate when there is a Mikdash, according to Hillel.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (Pesachim 25a and 10:27):</span> Hillel taught that nowadays, if one eats Matzah and Maror wrapped together, Maror is Mevatel Matzah. All agree that a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan is Mevatel a Mitzvah mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Ba'al ha'Ma'or):</span> The Rif says that the Beraisa proves R. Yochanan's assertion that Chachamim argue with Hillel. The conclusion was like Rav Ashi, that the Beraisa is like Hillel! It teaches that one *need not* eat them wrapped together, but one may do so! Rather, R. Yochanan must have had a tradition that Chachamim argue with Hillel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Milchamos Hash-m):</span> In the Ba'al ha'Ma'or's text, Rav Ashi explicitly establishes the Beraisa like Hillel. However, the correct text does not. It cannot be like Hillel, for it says 'perhaps one must do like Hillel used to do'. According to Hillel, the Torah requires doing this way! Rav Ashi does not argue with R. Yochanan. Rather, he refutes the Gemara's assertion that there is an opinion that Mitzvos (mid'Oraisa) are Mevatel each other. The Beraisa is like Chachamim, and they agree that one is Yotzei by eating them together! They argue only about whether or not the verse requires eating them together.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Perhaps Hillel holds that normally Mitzvos are Mevatel each other; here is different, because the Torah commanded to eat them together! Chachamim hold that Mitzvos are Mevatel each other, yet they agree that if one ate them together he was Yotzei!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Mordechai Pesachim 611):</span> If Hillel held that normally Mitzvos are Mevatel each other, he would need the verse to permit eating them together, so he would have no source to require this l'Chatchilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> We dip Korech in Charoses, for this is the only time that Hillel would dip in Charoses.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The Gemara implies that had the Halachah been fixed like either opinion, we would act differently. This is not so! Hillel agrees that nowadays we cannot eat them together, for Maror would Mevatel Matzah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rosh ibid.):</span> If the Halachah were like Hillel, we would bless on Matzah and eat it, then bless on Maror and eat it with Matzah. Since Maror and Korech are both mid'Rabanan, they do not Mevatel each other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If (according to the Rif) Chachamim agree that equal Mitzvos do not Mevatel each other, we should be able to do so according to everyone! Why must we eat Maror by itself?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rosh ibid. and Milchamos Hash-m):</span> Perhaps the Halachah follows Chachamim; they hold that Korech is Reshus (not a Mitzvah at all), it would be Mevatel Maror (a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan), just like a mid'Rabanan is Mevatel a mid'Oraisa.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 8:6):</span> One takes two Matzos, breaks one, puts the piece inside the whole Matzah and blesses ha'Motzi. Afterwards he wraps Matzah and Maror together and blesses 'Al Achilas Matzos u'Morerim' and eats them. If he ate each of them by itself he blesses on each of them by itself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishnah:</span> This is when there is a Mikdash, and Matzah and Maror are both mid'Oraisa, so neither is Mevatel the other.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (ibid. 8:8):</span> Nowadays one blesses ha'Motzi and Al Achilas Matzah, dips the Matzah in Charoses and eats it. Then he blesses Al Achilas Maror, dips the Maror in Charoses but does not leave it in very long, and eats it. This is a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Mano'ach (DH v'Lo):</span> Even though it is a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan to dip in Charoses, since the Torah mentions Maror but not Charoses, Maror is like mid'Oraisa compared to Charoses. Therefore, the Charoses would Mevatel the Maror if the Maror was left in for a while. We are not concerned lest Charoses Mevatel the Matzah because one need not taste the Matzah. Alternatively, Matzah is dry and it does not absorb much taste.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If Matzah is made from rice and grain, we do not say that rice of Reshus is Mevatel grain of Mitzvah (Zevachim 78a)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (R. David Pesachim 115a DH v'Ifshar):</span> We are concerned lest there will be enough Maror to Mevatel the taste of Matzah. Alternatively, perhaps the Maror will be a Chatzitzah between the Matzah and his throat.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (R. David ibid. and Tosfos 78a DH Ela):</span> Maror is Mevatel Matzah, for its taste is potent. Alternatively, Maror is Mevatel some taste of the k'Zayis of Matzah. If the Korech contains a larger Shi'ur of Matzah, one is Yotzei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Gilyon ha'Shas Zevachim ibid.):</span> Nowadays, after eating Matzah by itself we eat Maror by itself. We do not eat it with Matzah, for then Matzah is Reshus and it would Mevatel Maror, even though Matzah's taste is not potent!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Keren Orah 78a DH v'Ein):</span> Chachamim hold that Mitzvos are Mevatel each other. Regarding Min b'Mino, the minority is Batel, one was not Yotzei that Mitzvah. Regarding Min b'Eino Mino, if each can be tasted neither is Batel. However, l'Chatchilah they should be eaten separately.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2 (Magihah in R. David, 19):</span> Since there is a Mitzvah to taste the Maror, we are concerned even for a slight blunting of its taste.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #3 (Maharam Chalavah 115a DH v'Asi, citing the Ramban):</span> Here, we do not discuss Bitul of taste. Rather, it was enacted to do each Mitzvah by itself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> To answer the previous question, the Ramban can say that Matzah made of rice and grain is one entity (they were mixed before it received the name Matzah, at the time of baking), so it is considered doing the Mitzvah by itself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Griz (Zevachim ibid.):</span> We are concerned for Bitul of the Mitzvah, not of the taste! Nevertheless, if one can taste the Matzah he is Yotzei because Ta'am k'Ikar.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Griz):</span> In Zevachim, Rashi says that Hillel teaches that we are not concerned lest Maror be Mevatel the taste of Matzah. Why doesn't he address Bitul of the Pesach? Rashi holds that Pesach is eaten together with Matzah and Maror!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> Rashba (Berachos 38b DH Lo) proves from the law of Bitul that we require the taste of Matzah. Perhaps Rashi holds that we learn from a Hekesh to Maror (reason dictates that taste of Maror is required), but we do not require the taste of Pesach. Alternatively, he teaches that Maror is not Mevatel Matzah, and all the more so it is not Mevatel Pesach, for meat has a more potent taste than Matzah.</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 475:1):</span> One holds together the three Matzos with the broken one in the middle, blesses ha'Motzi and Al Achilas Matzah...and eats a k'Zayis from each. Afterwards he fully submerges a k'Zayis of Maror in Charoses but does not leave it in very long, lest it lose its bitterness. For this reason one must shake the Charoses off. He blesses Al Achilas Maror and eats it without reclining. Afterwards he cuts the bottom Matzah and wraps a piece together with Maror and dips them in Charoses.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) THE REASONING BEHIND THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN THE RABANAN AND REBBI ELIEZER</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah earlier (78a) records an argument between the Rabanan and Rebbi Eliezer with regard to blood of a valid Korban which became mixed with blood of an invalid Korban or with blood which is not fit for Zerikah ('Dam ha'Tamtzis'). The Rabanan maintain that all of the blood should be poured into the Amah. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the blood may be used for Zerikah.
</p><p>
The Gemara discusses the reasoning behind each view. Rav Zevid explains that the Rabanan maintain that there is a Gezeirah that even when the amount of non-Zerikah blood does not nullify the blood which is supposed to be used for Zerikah, the blood may not be used. This is because if it could be used, then the Kohanim might become accustomed to using blood that was mixed in such a manner, and they might use it for Zerikah even when the non-Zerikah blood nullifies the valid Zerikah blood. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that no Gezeirah was ever enacted, since the Chachamim did not want to cause Korbanos to become Pasul because of their decrees.
</p><p>
Rav Papa says that everyone agrees that the Chachamim would make such a decree, even if it would cause a Korban to become Pasul. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that a mixture of Pasul blood and valid blood is Pasul. However, he maintains that it was uncommon for the Zerikah blood to become mixed with the Dam ha'Tamtzis, and, therefore, he maintains that there was no such decree.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Mai) asks that the Gemara's search for reasons for the views of these Tana'im seems unnecessary. In the next part of the Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer maintains 'Ro'in' -- we view the unfit blood as though it were water, and the Zerikah blood is valid if it would have maintained an appearance of blood in this amount of water. The Rabanan do not agree with this concept. Since the next part of the Mishnah explicitly states this reasoning for their respective views, why does the Gemara need to look for other reasons for the argument in the Mishnah? They clearly argue about whether or not there is a concept of 'Ro'in'!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that Rebbi Eliezer says his reasoning of 'Ro'in' only with regard to the law in the next part of the Mishnah. If 'Ro'in' would have been his reasoning in the earlier part of the Mishnah, then he would have mentioned it here as well. It must be that the Rabanan in the Mishnah here agree with the concept of 'Ro'in' and yet they still argue with Rebbi Eliezer for some other reason.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that everyone agrees that something which is never supposed to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach is <i>not</i> something that may not be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach when it becomes mixed up with blood that is valid for Zerikah, as long as the Zerikah blood maintains its identity through 'Ro'in.' This is because there is no prohibition against sprinkling water on the Mizbe'ach with intention and knowledge that it is water (see Tosfos on 77b, DH b'Dam). Similarly, there is no prohibition against sprinkling a mixture containing Dam ha'Tamtzis if one does not intend to perform the sprinkling of that blood for the atonement of the Korban. The only time the Rabanan do not apply 'Ro'in' is when the blood is something which is supposed to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, but it is going to be placed on an improper location on the Mizbe'ach. This is why the Gemara inquires into the reasoning behind the argument between the Rabanan and Rebbi Eliezer.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> explains this answer of Tosfos further. He says that 'Ro'in' is not a valid reason to allow blood which already is designated to be sprinkled on a certain place on the Mizbe'ach to change into blood which is now sprinkled somewhere else on the Mizbe'ach. However, if the blood was Pasul or was Dam ha'Tamtzis, then there is nothing wrong with allowing this blood to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes addresses an apparent difficulty with this logic. The next Mishnah begins by saying that everyone agrees that Zerikah blood which is mixed with the blood of Ba'alei Mumim (animals with blemishes) must be poured into the Amah. If this blood is not supposed to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, then why should its mixture prevent the valid blood from being sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach? The Shitah Mekubetzes answers that the blood of animals with blemishes is disgusting, and therefore, according to everyone, it is unfit to be placed on the Mizbe'ach. (See <b>BARTENURA</b> and <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> for a different reason.)
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Shitah Mekubetzes explains that it is not because valid blood may not be sprinkled in a place where it is not supposed to go. Rather, the reason is that since the blood has a place where it is supposed to be sprinkled, it is considered important blood which is not negated through the logic of 'Ro'in' which gives it the status of water. However, blood that is unfit for Zerikah, such as that of a Pasul animal and Dam ha'Tamtzis which has no usage whatsoever, may be considered Batel through 'Ro'in.' (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE FUNCTION OF 'BITUL B'ROV'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Parah (9:1) which discusses a case in which a drop of regular water falls into a bowl of Mei Chatas (the consecrated water which contains the ashes of the Parah Adumah and which is used for the purification process of one who became Tamei with Tum'as Mes). Although there clearly is a majority of Mei Chatas, may this water be used in the purification process of one who is Tamei? Rebbi Eliezer rules that if two sprinkles from this water are administered, then it may be used to make a person Tahor. The Chachamim argue and rule that this water may not be used. The Gemara discusses both opinions at length.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah in Parah not take into account the fundamental principle of Bitul b'Rov (as discussed earlier, on 78b)? This is a case of Min b'Mino (water fell into water) to which Bitul b'Rov applies, and the drop of ordinary water should be nullified by the majority of Mei Chatas! Even Rebbi Eliezer, who rules leniently in this case, seems to ignore the logic of Bitul b'Rov.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (79b, DH Tenan Hasam) answers that the law in the Mishnah in Parah (either the ruling of Rebbi Eliezer or the ruling of the Chachamim) certainly is mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan instituted a stringency with regard to Mei Chatas because of the severity of the laws of Tum'ah and Mei Chatas. Mid'Oraisa, however, the ordinary water indeed is Batel b'Rov.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVA</b>, quoted by the <b>CHOK NASAN</b>, argues that the rule of Bitul b'Rov does not apply in this case. Bitul b'Rov does not mean that the minority in the mixture acquires the status of the majority. Rather, it means that the minority does not interfere with the status of the majority; the minority is ignored. Accordingly, even if Bitul b'Rov would apply, the regular water which would be sprinkled from this mixture would not have the status of Mei Chatas and would not purify the person. This makes the entire mixture Pasul.
</p><p>
The logic used by the Riva is attributed to the <b>ONEG YOM TOV</b> (OC 4). He uses this principle when he asserts that Tzitzis that were spun without specific intent to use them for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis may not be added to a majority of strings that were spun with the correct intention by applying the principle of Bitul b'Rov. Since they do not attain the status of the majority, they do not add to the correct amount of valid Tzitzis required. The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> adds that a similar line of reasoning is advanced by the <b>RAN</b> in Nedarim (59a), who states that a permitted substance which is the minority of a mixture retains its status even though the majority of the mixture is a forbidden substance. It seem that the Ran maintains that something which is a minority retains its status even though it is Batel b'Rov.
</p><p>
However, the <b>CHAMUDAS DANIEL</b> points out that this principle is challenged by many other Rishonim. As mentioned earlier, Tosfos explicitly maintains that Bitul <i>would</i> work in this case. Tosfos clearly maintains that the regular water in the mixture indeed becomes Mei Chatas because of Bitul. This is also apparent from Tosfos in Bava Metzia (6b, DH Kafatz), who questions the Gemara's statement that if an animal that was separated as Ma'aser Behemah jumps back into the area where the animals that were not yet counted are gathered, all of the animals are exempt from Ma'aser Behemah. Tosfos asks why this should be: why does Bitul b'Rov not apply so that all of the animals in the mixture are considered as obligated to have Ma'aser separated from them? From the question of Tosfos there it is evident that he maintains that the animal that was Ma'aser Behemah loses its status once it becomes Batel in the majority of animals from which Ma'aser was not separated. The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (Hashmatos to 78b), in his third explanation, also expresses clearly that a minority of Isur turns into Heter (see also <b>SHALOM RAV</b> to 78b in the name of the <b>DARCHEI YOSHER</b>
</p><p>
The Chamudas Daniel therefore concludes, unlike the Oneg Yom Tov quoted above, that a majority of Tzitzis strings that were made with intent for the Mitzvah of Tzitzis turn the minority of strings that were made without the proper intent into valid strings, enabling the person to fulfill the Mitzvah of Tzitzis with them. (See also <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b>, Yevamos #59, who discusses this argument.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN DOES BAL TOSIF APPLY TO DWELLING IN THE SUKAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Bal Tosif :Sukah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</span> If blood that requires four Matanos (being thrown against walls of the Mizbe'ach) was mixed with blood that requires one, we do four Matanos;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	R. Yehoshua says, we do one Matanah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Eliezer:</span> You transgress Bal Tigra (detracting from a Mitzvah)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Yehoshua:</span> You transgress Bal Tosif (adding to a Mitzvah)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh Hashanah 28b - Abaye (to Rava):</span> (If you hold that one is Yotzei without intent,) you should say that one who sleeps in a Sukah on Shemini Atzeres is lashed for Bal Tosif!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> One is Yotzei a Mitzvah without intent. One transgresses Bal Tosif only with intent (to add).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Yehoshua holds that one transgresses without intent!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Correction (Rava):</span> One transgresses Bal Tosif at the time of the Mitzvah even without intent. One transgresses not at the time of the Mitzvah only with intent.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sukah 47a:</span> The Halachah is, we sit in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres, but we do not bless (Leshev ba'Sukah).</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 (Sukah 4:5):</span> The Halachah is that we sit in the Sukah, but do not bless. Since it is Shemini Atzeres, it is a contradiction to bless (this would show that it is the seventh day). We are stringent to sit in the Sukah and conduct like Yom Tov.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Sukah 6:11):</span> On Hoshanah Rabah, one removes his Kelim from the Sukah in the afternoon. If he has no place to move his Kelim to, he opens a place (in the Sechach) four by four Tefachim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ra'avad:</span> Perhaps he means that on other days,if one needs to eat in the Sukah, he need not breach it, but on Shemini Atzeres, one could thnk that he does so l'Shem Mitzvah, so he must open it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (13):</span> Nowadays that we keep two days of Yom Tov, we sit in the Sukah eight days. On the eighth day (Shemini Atzeres) we sit in it, but we do not bless Leshev ba'Sukah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 16b DH v'Tok'im):</span> Why may we blow extra Teki'os? This is Bal Tosif. One transgresses even without intent, for the Mitzvah applies the entire day, if another Tzibur that did not yet hear them will present itself! We must say that repeating a Mitzvah is not Bal Tosif.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (Rosh Hashanah 16a DH Lamah):</span> Bal Tosif is what a person deciees on his own. An enactment of Chachamim is not Bal Tosif. This is why we sleep in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres. We are obligated to follow their words!</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 666:1):</span> If one has no place to move his Kelim and he wants to eat in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres, he must open a place (in the Sechach) four by four Tefachim to make it clear that he does not intend for the Mitzvah, lest he look like one who adds to the  Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (1 and Magen Avraham 2):</span> He does not truly add to the Mitzvah, for after the time one transgressed Bal Tosif only with intent to add.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (1):</span> In Eruvin, Rashi says that we asked (will you say that one who sleeps in a Sukah on Shemini Atzeres is lashed) because this is our practice. The Rashba (Rosh Hashanah one to another DH Lamah) says that Bal Tosif does not apply to any enactment of Chachamim. We blow extra Teki'os mid'Rabanan, we oberve Yom Tov Sheni, and we detract from Mitzvos (we do not blow the Shofar when Rosh Hashanah is on Shabbos). The Rashba and Ritva say that we sleep in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres, unlike the Mordechai.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (4):</span> Even though three Tefachim of air disqualifies a Sukah, we require a large amount so it will be evident.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If he wants to eat in the Sukah after the Chag, he need not open anything. It looks like adding only on Shemini Atzeres.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (Sof Siman 651 DH u'Mah):</span> The Tur says that one who adds another species to the four Minim transgresses Bal Tosif only if he takes it l'Shem Mitzvah. In Rosh Hashanah, we learned that at the time of the Mitzvah, one transgresses even without intent!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (27):</span> R. Yerucham said that this (at the time of the Mitzvah, one transgresses even without intent) is according to Rava, who holds that Mitzvah do not require intent. We rule (OC 60:4) that Mitzvos require intent, so one transgresses only with intent. The Magid Mishneh and Ran hold that one does not really transgress, for the extra species is separate, but one should not do so, for he looks like one who adds. Perhaps this is the intent of the Tur and Beis Yosef.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 668:1):</span> In Chutz la'Aretz we eat in the Sukah at night and during the day, but we do not bless because it is a Safek.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kosav):</span> The Mordechai says that since we do not bless l'Chatchilah we did the last seven days, there is a Heker, and it is not like adding to the Mitzvah. One may not sleep, for this looks like adding. The Poskim did not distinguish (they permit even sleeping).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (2):</span> We eat in the Sukah because there is a Heker that we do not add to the Mitzvah, i.e. we do not bless. We do not sleep in the Sukah because there is no Heker (we never bless on sleeping)! This is why we leave the Sukah right after eating (there is no Heker when we stay in the Sukah without eating).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (6):</span> Many require sleeping in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres. The custom is to be lenient. Some say that those who forbid sleeping also forbid eating something (e.g. fruits) on which we never bless Leshev ba'Sukah, for there is no Heker. Others permit, and this is more reasonable.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (6):</span> Benei Eretz Yisrael in Chutz la'Aretz should eat in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres, but they should explicitly say (inaudibly to others) that it is not l'Shem Mitzvah. They should find an excuse to sleep in the house, and in private eat something in the house. They should not be conspicuous, lest Benei Chutz la'Aretz learn from them to be lenient.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Yesh):</span> Some sit in the Sukah on the day of Shemini Atzeres, but not at night. This is because Yeshivas Sukah contradicts calling the day Shemini Atzeres in Kidush.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Magen Avraham 2):</span> Also during the day we call the day Shemini Atzeres in Birkas ha'Mazon! Rather, these people are concerned for Bal Tosif (adding to a Mitzvah). After ceasing to eat in the Sukah for an evening, we are not concerned for Bal Tosif. However, all the Poskim require eating all meals in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres, even Bein ha'Shemashos at the end of the day. This is why Noyei Sukah are forbidden on day nine.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yom Tov Sheni k'Hilchaso (2:7 and footnotes):</span> Some say that someone from Chutz la'Aretz visiting Eretz Yisrael must sit in a Sukah on Shemini Atzeres without a Berachah (Be'er Moshe, ha'Ga'on S. ha'Levi Vozner, ha'Ga'on R. C.P. Sheinberg). Ha'Ga'on R. Y.S. Elyashiv says that one should have pots in the Sukah at the time, for then even a Ben Eretz Yisrael may sit inside. Others exempt (Lu'ach Eretz Yisrael). Ha'Ga'on R. S.Z. Auerbach exempts because even in Chutz la'Aretz there are different customs.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) HOW MANY 'ZERIKOS' ARE PERFORMED WHEN THE BLOODS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF KORBANOS BECOME MIXED</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (80a) discusses three cases in which the bloods of separate Korbanos become mixed together: a mixture of two Korbanos, each of which requires only one Zerikah; a mixture of two Korbanos, each of which requires four Zerikos; and a mixture of a Korban which requires one Zerikah with a Korban that requires four Zerikos. The Mishnah states that in the first case 'they should be given with one sprinkling.'
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that, assuming that each drop of blood is not considered a mixture of both Korbanos, how can one be assured that the blood from both Korbanos reached the Mizbe'ach? Perhaps all of the blood that was placed on the Mizbe'ach was from only one Korban. (See <b>TOSFOS</b>, DH Kegon, who understands the Gemara's question differently.) The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which 'one [sprinkle of blood] became mixed with one [sprinkle of blood].' What does the Gemara mean by this answer?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Achas b'Achas) explains that the Gemara means that the Kohen places all of the blood that became mixed onto the Mizbe'ach, thereby ensuring that some blood from each Korban is placed on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara's initial assumption was that the Mishnah means that only a single Matanah is performed, because no matter how much blood is in the mixture, each drop is considered a mixture of the blood of both Korbanos. However, according to the opinion that each drop of blood is viewed as the blood from only one animal and not as a mixture of blood from both animals, the Mishnah must mean that enough blood for one Matanah from each animal became mixed together, and by placing the entire mixture on the Mizbe'ach the Kohen certainly performs Zerikah for both animals. Rashi apparently understands that the Mishnah's statement that 'they should be given with one sprinkling' means, as the Gemara initially assumes, that one Matanah should be performed. The Gemara's answer is that this wording also means that one must give an amount of one Matanah <i>from each Korban</i>, and not the total amount of only one Matanah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (Hashmatos #8) has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. In the Mishnah's third case, in which a Korban that requires one Zerikah becomes mixed with a Korban that requires four, the Gemara seems to retract the explanation used in the previous two cases. Rashi (81a, DH v'Chi Teima) explains that the Gemara means that Rebbi Eliezer's opinion in the Mishnah ('Yinasnu b'Matan Arba') cannot mean that <i>five</i> Zerikos should be given. The Shitah Mekubetzes asks, how can the Gemara even entertain such a possibility? According to the Gemara's original understanding, one might have understood this to mean that either <i>four</i> Zerikos must be performed, or <i>eight</i>, but not five! There is no way that the wording of the Mishnah could possibly mean five Zerikos.
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes therefore gives a different explanation (in the name of 'Mori'). He explains that when the Mishnah says, 'Yinasnu b'Matanah Achas,' it means that the total <i>amount</i> of blood that the Zerikos of both Korbanos required before they were mixed together should be given in as many Matanos as the Mishnah says. For example, 'Yinasnu b'Matanah Achas' means that the amount of two Zerikos, one from each Korban, should be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach at one time. Therefore, when the Gemara says that one cannot learn that Rebbi Eliezer means five Zerikos, it does not mean that 'Matan Arba' in some way means five Zerikos. Rather, it means that the amount of blood required for the Zerikos of both Korbanos, indicated by the word 'Yinasnu,' should be given in four Zerikos.
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes also disagrees with Rashi about how much blood the Gemara is discussing. According to his explanation, when the Gemara says that in the Mishnah's case, 'one became mixed with one,' it does not necessarily mean that the amount of one Zerikah is mixed with the amount of only one other Zerikah. It means that the amount of the Zerikah is comprised of the amount of blood which was supposed to be given for both Korbanos. (Y. Montrose) </p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BLOOD OF AN 'OLAH' AND OF A 'BECHOR' THAT BECAME MIXED</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara records a dispute about whether or not the place on the Mizbe'ach where the blood of the Korban Olah is placed is the same place where the leftover blood ('Shirayim') is placed. Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes a Beraisa to support the view that it is the same place. The Torah says, 'Kodesh Hem' -- 'they (the various types of Bechor) are holy' (Bamidbar 18:17). The Beraisa explains that the verse teaches that even if the blood of a Bechor was mixed with blood of other Korbanos, it still should be offered. Rav Huna says that the Beraisa must be referring to a case in which the leftover blood of an Olah was mixed with that of a Bechor, and the verse is teaching that the Kohen still should perform the Zerikah. The primary Zerikah of the blood of a Bechor is performed in the same place as the primary Zerikah of an Olah. The Beraisa's statement proves that the original Zerikah of a Korban Olah itself also may be sprinkled in the same place as the leftover blood is placed. The Gemara answers that in the case of the Beraisa, the original Zerikah-bloods from an Olah and a Bechor become mixed, and thus there is no way to infer from there whether the place on which the primary Zerikah is performed is the same as the place where the leftover blood is placed.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks, what is the verse teaching? Since it is known that the place of the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah and of a Bechor is the same, it is obvious that the bloods of each type of Korban should be sprinkled in the same place. The Gemara answers that the verse teaches that the blood of Korbanos do not cancel each other's status when mixed.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mai) has difficulty with the Gemara's question. What does the Gemara mean when it says that the verse is teaching nothing novel if it is teaching merely that a mixture of blood of an Olah and of a Bechor is sprinkled? There is a dispute in the Mishnah here about whether there are issues of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra with the Zerikah of a mixture of blood in a case in which one of the Korbanos requires four Zerikos (Olah) and one requires only one (Bechor). The verse is needed in order to teach that the blood may be sprinkled!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that because the extra Zerikos are supposed to be performed with intent that one is merely placing water on the Mizbe'ach if the Zerikos are not necessary, there is no issue of Bal Tosif (see Tosfos to 77b, DH b'Dam, and 79b, DH b'Mai). There is also no issue of Bal Tigra, since the Kohen is doing the minimum Zerikah in order to fulfill the obligation of the Korban. Since it is known from logic that there is no problem of Bal Tosif or Bal Tigra, no verse is needed to teach that the mixed blood may be sprinkled.
</p><p>
The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> questions the explanation of Tosfos. Rebbi Eliezer, who says in the Mishnah that one should perform four Zerikos and is not concerned about Bal Tosif, obviously maintains that the extra Zerikos are considered like water if the Zerikos are not necessary. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua still argues with this logic and says that one should perform only one Zerikah. Since this logic is not unanimously accepted, clearly a verse is needed to teach this concept. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that the verse expresses no novel teaching? (See <b>KEREN ORAH</b>, who also has difficulty with the explanation of Tosfos.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> answers in the name of <b>TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ</b> that the Gemara understands that the verse is not relevant to the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, since it was not quoted in the Mishnah. It must be that no Halachic conclusions can be derived in this case based on the verse. This is why the Gemara seeks to derive a different from the verse.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> explains that Tosfos actually is giving the same answer as Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz. When Rebbi Eliezer states in the Mishnah that Bal Tosif is only 'k'she'Hu b'Atzmo' (when it is by itself), he is explaining why -- when the bloods of two Korbanos are mixed together -- there is no problem of Bal Tosif. As mentioned above, if the blood being sprinkled in the last Zerikos is that of the Korban which is supposed to have one Zerikah, it is done with intent that the blood is like water, and therefore there is no problem of Bal Tosif. Only when the sole intent is for the Mitzvah of Zerikah, as it is when there is only the blood of one Korban, is there a problem of Bal Tosif. Since this is the reason given by Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah, no Halachic conclusion can be deduced from the verse, as Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz states explicitly. The same applies to the reason which Tosfos gives for Rebbi Yehoshua (which is more directly what Rebbi Yehoshua states in the Mishnah). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> EXEMPTIONS FROM BAL TOSIF <span class='indexentry'>[Bal Tosif: Birkas Kohanim]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	80a (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</span> If blood that requires four Matanos (being thrown against walls of the Mizbe'ach) was mixed with blood that requires one, we do four Matanos;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	R. Yehoshua says, we do one Matanah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Eliezer:</span> You transgress Bal Tigra (detracting from a Mitzvah)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yehoshua:</span> You transgress Bal Tosif (adding to a Mitzvah)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	81a (Rava):</span> R. Eliezer views blood put in the wrong place as if it were water (he permits, so we can fix the other Korban), Chachamim do not.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh Hashanah 28b (Abaye):</span> (If you hold that one is Yotzei without intent,) one who sleeps in a Sukah on Shemini Atzeres is lashed for Bal Tosif!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rava:</span> I say that Bal Tosif only applies at the time of the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Shemen bar Aba - Beraisa):</span> If a Kohen decided to add another Berachah to Birkas Kohanim, e.g. 'Hash-m... should bless you 1000 times', he transgresses Bal Tosif (even after the time for the Mitzvah passed)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> If another Tzibur (that was not yet blessed) would present itself, he could bless again, so the entire day is the time for the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Support:</span> R. Yehoshua holds that Bal Tosif applies even after the Mitzvah was finished (the Bechor's blood needed only one Zerikah). This is because if there would be another Bechor to offer, we would throw its blood, so the entire day is the time for the Mitzvah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> Perhaps R. Yehoshua holds that Bal Tosif applies even after the time for the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rava):</span> One transgresses Bal Tosif at the time of the Mitzvah even without intent, and not at the time of the Mitzvah only with intent.</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 (Megilah 15b and 3:17):</span> A Kohen may not add a Berachah to the three Berachos of Birkas Kohanim, such as 'Hash-m... should bless you 1000 times', whether silently or aloud, for it says 'Lo Tosifu.' We say that if another Tzibur would present itself, he could bless again. This shows that if a Kohen gave Birkas Kohanim here, and went elsewhere where they did not yet give Birkas Kohanim, he may give Birkas Kohanim with them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 14:12):</span> A Kohen may not add a Berachah to the three Berachos of Birkas Kohanim, such as 'Hash-m... should bless you 1000 times', whether silently or aloud, for it says 'Lo Tosifu.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 16b DH v'Tok'im):</span> Why may we blow extra Teki'os? This is Bal Tosif. One transgresses even without intent, for the entire day is a Mitzvah if another Tzibur that did not yet hear them will present itself! We must say that repeating a Mitzvah is not Bal Tosif.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (Petichah Koleles to Shulchan Aruch, 1:38):</span> Tosfos agrees to the Rashba (below) that anything done for a fence, e.g. Yom Tov Sheni, is not Bal Tosif. He asked only about Teki'os, which are not a fence, rather, to befuddle the Satan. Beis Din may partially detract from a Mitzvah, but not totally uproot a Mitzvah. Therefore, they did not decree (due to concern lest one fix a musical instrument) never to blow the Shofar</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashba (Rosh Hashanah 16a DH Lamah):</span> Bal Tosif is what a person decrees on his own. An enactment of Chachamim is not Bal Tosif. This is why we sleep in the Sukah on Shemini Atzeres. We are obligated to follow their words!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (ibid., 40):</span> According to Tosfos, Bal Tosif does not apply to repeating a Mitzvah. This explains why we may light additional Neros Chanukah (letter of the law, one is Yotzei through one Ner). The Rashba and those who say that it applies to repeating a Mitzvah must hold that Bal Tosif does not apply to Mitzvos mid'Rabanan. Even though the Rambam says that mid'Rabanan Mitzvos are Torah law due to 'do not veer from what Chachamim tell you', this refers to fences, but not to enactments such as Ner Chanukah and Mikra Megilah. He says (Hilchos Mamrim 1:2) that 'do not veer' applies to fences</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Minchas Chinuch (454 DH v'Hinei ha'Rav and 455 b'Sof):</span> The Rambam does not mention lashes for Bal Tosif. This is because we hold that Mitzvos need intent, so one transgresses Bal Tosif only with intent. If he thinks that he is doing a Mitzvah, he errs, and he is not worthy of lashes. If he perverts Torah, he is an Apikores whom we throw to a pit! He must explain that when the Gemara discusses lashes, this is mid'Rabanan. Sefer ha'Chinuch says that one is lashed mid'Oraisa. He must hold that that Mitzvos do not need intent, so one transgresses Bal Tosif even without intent.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (ibid., 37):</span> It is difficult to say that when the Gemara discusses lashes, this is mid'Rabanan</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (OC 128:28):</span> If a Kohen gave Birkas Kohanim and went to another Beis ha'Keneses and found a Tzibur that did not yet reach Birkas Kohanim, he may give Birkas Kohanim again.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (40):</span> Repeating a Mitzvah is not Bal Tosif.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Torah Temimah (Devarim 4:2):</span> Why should the Torah forbid a Kohen to give extra Berachos? It seems that Bal Tosif is lest one come to think that Shi'urim of the Torah are optional, and he come to detract. This is why the Rashba says that we are not concerned for enactments of Chachamim. Also, we are not concerned regarding mixtures, for one realizes that he adds (e.g. extra Zerikos) due to the mixture, and he will not come to detract. This also explains why some say that one transgresses only if he intends to add.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> The Rambam holds that there are no lashes for Bal Tosif is because it is a Lav shebi'Chlalos (one Lav that forbids multiple things). Granted, if Bal Tosif includes a new Mitzvah that one invented, this is Lav shebi'Chlalos. However, if it applies only to adding to existing Mitzvos, why is this Lav shebi'Chlalos? The Rambam obligates lashes for Kodshim that became Pasul due to 'do not eat any abomination', for it is as if this Lav was said about every Pesul by itself. Likewise, it is as if Bal Tosif was written about every Mitzvah! Rather, Bal Tosif applies even to a new Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Igros Moshe 1:14:2):</span> If Bal Tosif applied to a new Mitzvah, this would be because one may not add to the Torah's obligations, e.g. a new festival or to take a stick. The actions themselves are permitted, but one may not add. This is not one Lav forbidding many matters, rather, one matter from which come many Isurim. We find a bigger Chidush, that one is lashed for eating a Tamei animal, fish or fowl, even though many species are included. Since the Torah did not divide the Isur, the different species are details of one Lav.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (ibid., 1:39):</span> The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua, who says that at the time of the Mitzvah, Bal Tosif applies, even if he intends 'the extra Zerikos of blood are like water.'</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yom Tru'ah (Rosh Hashanah 28b DH Mesiv):</span> The case of Birkas Kohanim teaches that Bal Tosif applies even to mere Dibur. However, since he intends to add his own Berachah, surely he intends to transgress. Why is this difficult only for Rava, who says that Mitzvos do not need intent? Also, the Kohen does not say that the addition is mid'Oraisa. The Rambam says that one transgresses only if he says that the addition is mid'Oraisa! It seems that this is only for matters added for a fence. In general (e.g. Hilchos Tefilah 14:12), he agrees that intent to add suffices to transgress.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasdei David (Korbanos 8 DH Chachim p.135):</span> If one does a Mitzvah and adds the same Mitzvah, e.g. another pair of the same Tefilin, he transgresses Bal Tosif only if he intended. Without intent, it is forbidden mid'Rabanan. He was Yotzei the Mitzvah, even if he tied them together; if the Mitzvah need not be bound, it is as if they are separate. If he added a part of the Mitzvah, e.g. a fifth Parshah in Tefilin, whether he repeated a Parshah or fabricated a new Parshah, he transgresses Bal Tosif and he was not Yotzei the Mitzvah, because they are tied. At the time of the Mitzvah, this is even without special intent. If they are not tied, he transgresses only with intent, but he was Yotzei. Stam, it is Asur mid'Rabanan; if it is evident that he does not intend to add, it is permitted l'Chatchilah. The same applies to Mitzvos of speech or actions. When he clearly does not intend to add, it is permitted with the same or a different species. Wearing two pairs of Rashi or two pairs of R. Tam Tefilin is like doing the Mitzvah twice. Sitting in a Sukah on Shemini Atzeres is permitted in Eretz Yisrael with a Heker (indication that it is not l'Shem Mitzvah, e.g. he makes Kidush in the house), and in Chutz la'Aretz without a Heker, like Tefilin. If Beis Din ruled to add to an Aseh or Lav, and said that this is Torah law, they transgressed Bal Tosif, but they are not lashed. If they made a fence or say to do so due to Safek, it is permitted and we are commanded to obey. They may detract from Torah law only temporarily through an action, or passively, even for generations.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) CONSIDERING BLOOD TO BE LIKE WATER</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a case of blood of a Korban which was supposed to be brought in the Heichal which became mixed with blood from a Korban which was supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Mishnah states that when the blood was sprinkled first on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and afterwards brought into the Heichal and sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, the Zerikos are valid. When, however, the Zerikos were done in the reverse order, there is an argument about whether or not the Korban that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid. The Chachamim maintain that both Korbanos are valid. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Korban that requires the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is not valid, because any blood that requires Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon but is brought into the Heichal becomes invalid.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Nasan) explains that in the Mishnah's first case, in which the first Zerikah was done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, it must be that the sprinkling of the blood that was supposed to be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi was done with intent that the blood is merely like water being sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. The Gemara earlier (26b) quotes Shmuel who says that even when a Korban is supposed to have its Zerikah done in the Heichal, if the blood is sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon the Korban remains valid. If, however, the first Zerikah was done with intent to attain atonement, then the Zerikah no longer may be done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi, since the atonement was already attained.
</p><p>
Tosfos says that the second case, in which the blood was first brought into the Heichal, also must refer to when the Kohen brought the part of the blood that was supposed to atone on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon into the Heichal with intent that he merely was bringing water into the Heichal.
</p><p>
However, Tosfos is left with a question. If, in the second case, the blood of the Korban that needs to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is brought into the Heichal with intent that it is merely water, then why should anyone say that it is Pasul? Rebbi Akiva derives his ruling -- that blood that must be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon but that is brought into the Heichal is Pasul -- from the verse, 'Any Chatas whose blood is brought into the Ohel Mo'ed in order to atone in the sanctuary may not be eaten' (Vayikra 6:23; see the Gemara later (82a) which explains how Rebbi Akiva extends this law to other types of Korbanos). The verse uses the word, 'l'Chaper' -- 'to atone.' Tosfos asks that if, in this case, the blood is not brought with intent to attain atonement but rather it is brought into the Heichal merely as water, then why should this invalidate the Korban even according to Rebbi Akiva?
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> challenges Tosfos' question based on the words of Tosfos earlier. Tosfos earlier (26b, DH v'Iy) attempts to resolve a contradiction between Shmuel's comment there and the Mishnah (79b). Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah says that if the blood of a Korban that was supposed to be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra was mixed with blood that was supposed to be sprinkled below the Chut ha'Sikra, the blood may be viewed like water, and then some of the blood may be sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra (viewing it as blood) and then some below the Chut ha'Sikra. Rebbi Eliezer follows the principle of 'Ro'in,' which enables one to view the temporarily unwanted part of the mixture like water. Although the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer, they agree that when the Zerikah above the Chut ha'Sikra was already performed in such a manner, one should proceed and perform the Zerikah below the Chut ha'Sikra. This contradicts Shmuel's view that a Zerikah performed at the wrong place on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is a valid Zerikah, b'Di'eved. The Rabanan do not follow the principle of 'Ro'in,' and thus, in the case of the Mishnah there, both types of blood were sprinkled above the Chut ha'Sikra.
</p><p>
The Tosfos Yom Tov writes that he does not understand the words of Tosfos. Tosfos here asserts that everyone should agree that the blood may be viewed like water, and therefore the fact that the blood was brought into the Heichal should be of no significance. Why, then, does he not answer simply that the case of the Mishnah earlier (79b) refers to when the blood is sprinkled with intent that it is water? Based on what criterion does Tosfos determine when blood may be considered water, and when it may not be considered water?
</p><p>
The Tosfos Yom Tov proceeds to explain the questions of Tosfos here and Tosfos earlier (26b). The Rabanan argue that the principle of 'Ro'in' does not apply when there is a need to establish guidelines to determine how a person should act. Similarly, it does not apply when one acts without asking for a ruling about what to do. This is why Tosfos is unsure about how the Mishnah (79b) can be reconciled with Shmuel's opinion. In contrast, when the Kohen views the blood as water (which, as Tosfos explains, is the case in the Gemara here), even the Rabanan agree that 'Ro'in' applies. This is why Tosfos remains with a question here: everyone should agree that blood brought into the Heichal with intent that it is water is indeed considered water. Why, then, does Rebbi Akiva say that this fulfills the verse of 'l'Chaper'?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> answers that the verse of 'l'Chaper' is fulfilled in this case as follows. Since the blood of this Korban is mixed with the blood of a Korban which does require Zerikah in the Heichal, the mixture of blood indeed is considered as though it is being brought into the Heichal 'l'Chaper.' This answer is also quoted by the <b>CHOK NASAN</b> in the name of the <b>RIVA</b>.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> says that had Tosfos not given this approach in the Gemara, he would have learned the Mishnah in an entirely different manner which would have avoided this question. Tosfos is left with a question on the Gemara because he learns that the first case must refer to when the first Zerikah was done with intent that the blood is water since, otherwise, the Zerikah would not be necessary on the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi due to Shmuel's principle that a misplaced Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon is valid b'Di'eved. This forces Tosfos to say that the second case must be similar.
</p><p>
The Zevach Todah says that the first case is <i>not</i> discussing a case in which the first Zerikah is performed with intent that the blood is like water. Why, then, is a second Zerikah necessary? The Gemara earlier (8b) states that a Chatas which is brought with intent that it should atone for a sin other than the sin for which it was designated is <i>not</i> effective. Accordingly, it is logical to say that in the case of the Gemara here, in which the blood of the Korban that was supposed to be brought in the Heichal is the blood of a Chatas, the Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon was most likely performed with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be brought on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon, and not with intent for the Korban that is supposed to be offered in the Heichal. In such a case, even Shmuel would agree that such a Zerikah is not valid for a Korban Chatas. Although the second case of the Mishnah, in which the second Zerikah is done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and presumably could be valid for any Korban (which does not need specific intent), the Mishnah retains the format of the first case in which the second Zerikah <i>must</i> be performed, since the first case definitely discusses a Chatas. This avoids Tosfos' question about bringing the blood into the Heichal with intent that it is water. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE BLOOD OF A KORBAN WHICH WAS TAKEN INTO THE 'HEICHAL' UNNECESSARILY</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses a dispute between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili with regard to the blood of a Korban that was brought into the Heichal before the Zerikah was performed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Chachamim maintain that such a Korban is Pasul, and even the blood that remains in the Azarah (that was not brought into the Heichal) may no longer be used for the Zerikah. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the remaining blood may be used. According to the Chachamim, what is supposed to be done with the Korban that is Pasul?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Pesachim (23b, DH Im Eino Inyan) learns from the context of Moshe Rabeinu's statement to the sons of Aharon that such a Korban is burned immediately. When Moshe Rabeinu saw that a Chatas had been burned, he said, 'Hen Lo Huva Es Damah El ha'Kodesh' -- 'Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary' (Vayikra 10:18). This implies that if some of its blood <i>had</i> been brought into the sanctuary (i.e. the Heichal), then he would have agreed with their act of burning the Chatas immediately.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Pesachim (23b, DH d'Ha) quotes <b>RABEINU SHLOMO</b> of Troy who says that Rashi's inference is not correct. Once the sons of Aharon burned the Chatas without letting it first stay overnight (to become Pasul because of Linah as well), it is clear that they were not doing what normally would be done with a Chatas whose blood was sprinkled. The Mishnah in Pesachim (82b) states that a Korban which is Pasul because of a Pesul sheb'Gufo (an intrinsic invalidating factor) must be burned immediately. If there is a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim (an external invalidating factor, involving the blood or the owner of the Korban, but not the animal itself), the Chatas should be left overnight and then be burned. Since the case of the Mishnah is a case involving a Pesul due to the blood being brought into the Heichal, it follows that the Chatas should be left overnight and only afterwards be burned. Rabeinu Shmuel says that Moshe Rabeinu made his comment with regard to the <i>eating</i> of the Chatas. The inference from his words that the blood was not brought into the sanctuary is that if the blood would have been brought there, then he would have understood why they did not <i>eat</i> the Korban.
</p><p>
How does Rashi reconcile his explanation, that the Korban that is Pasul is burned immediately, with the Mishnah in Pesachim (82b) cited by Tosfos?
</p><p>
The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Pesachim #15) answers by first explaining the Mishnah's statement which differentiates between a Pesul sheb'Gufo and a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim. A Korban that has a Pesul sheb'Gufo, an intrinsic invalidating factor, obviously may be burned right away, since it will not become any more Pasul by being left overnight. Rashi explains later in Pesachim (73b, DH Te'ubar Tzuraso) that a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim requires Ibur Tzurah (being left overnight) because its present Pesul is not so severe, and thus one may not deface a Korban by burning it for having such a Pesul. Instead, one must wait until the Korban becomes Pasul with a Pesul sheb'Gufo, which the Torah commands one to burn.
</p><p>
The Kehilos Yakov analyzes this further. There is nothing wrong with the meat of a Korban when the Korban's blood (that was supposed to be used for Zerikah) was spilled or taken out of the Azarah. That is, the meat itself is not Pasul. The only problem is that there is no Zerikah to make the Korban a valid Korban and to permit its meat. The same is true with regard to a Pesul b'Ba'alim, such as when the owner of a Korban Pesach becomes Tamei before the Zerikah of the blood. There is nothing wrong with the meat itself, but the Korban is not valid because the Zerikah cannot be performed due to the fact that the owner has become Tamei.
</p><p>
However, Rashi infers from the Mishnah here that the Pesul of a Korban when its blood is brought into the Heichal unnecessarily is a Pesul <i>sheb'Gufo</i>, unlike other Pesulim involving blood. This is because the Chachamim maintain that even when there is a another pitcher of blood from the animal with which the Zerikah may be performed, the Korban still is Pasul. It must be that bringing the blood into the Heichal is unlike any other Pesul involving the blood, and thus the disqualified Korban is burned immediately.
</p><p>
This logic seems inconsistent with the words of the Gemara later in Pesachim (83a). The Gemara there says that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili follows the opinion (unlike the Mishnah quoted above) that even a Korban which is disqualified because of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim is burned immediately. How does the Gemara prove this? Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says (as Rashi here explains) that Moshe's statement implies that in any other case, a Chatas whose blood was taken into the Heichal would be burned. The Gemara almost explicitly states that this is an example of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, and not a Pesul sheb'Gufo, as the Kehilos Yakov explains. However, upon closer examination, this is no question at all. The Gemara is discussing the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who obviously maintains that this case is a case of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, as he says in the Mishnah here that a second cup of blood which remained in the Azarah <i>would</i> be valid for Zerikah! According to the Rabanan, however, this case remains a case of a Pesul sheb'Gufo. The Kehilos Yakov later notes that the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:16) derives this logic from the words of the Yerushalmi.
</p><p>
Tosfos, on the other hand, maintains that as long as no action was done directly to the meat to make it Pasul, the meat is considered to have a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim. It is also possible that Tosfos understands that the Gemara in Pesachim (83a) teaches that this case is definitely one of Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, even according to the Rabanan. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> WHEN DOES BLOOD BROUGHT INSIDE DISQUALIFY? <span class='indexentry'>[Chatas: Dam: Heichal]</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 blood was brought in (to the Heichal) Lechaper (to atone), it is Pasul, even if it was not thrown;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	R. Shimon says, it is not Pasul until it is thrown (Lechaper);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	R. Yehudah says, if it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	82b	(Beraisa):</span> (Blood that is brought) 'Penimah' (to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim) is Pasul. 'El ha'Kodesh' disqualifies if it was brought into the Heichal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> It would suffice to teach that blood brought into the Heichal is Pasul!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rava):</span> Intent to bring blood into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim disqualifies only when it gets to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. Therefore, he Torah must teach that the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim disqualifies.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	83a (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</span> It says here 'Lechaper ba'Kodesh', and it says that no one else may be in the Ohel Mo'ed on Yom Kipur when the Kohen Gadol enters 'Lechaper ba'Kodesh.' Just like there, the Isur begins once the Kohen Gadol enters, even before Kaparah, also here the blood is Pasul once it enters, even before Kaparah;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	R. Shimon says, it says here 'Lechaper ba'Kodesh', and it says to burn the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur whose blood was brought in 'Lechaper ba'Kodesh.' Just like there, this refers to after Kaparah, also here.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</span> If it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> If the blood was entered b'Mezid, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Is this when he was Mechaper, or when he was not Mechaper?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa):</span> It says Chatas twice ('v'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas...') to teach that all Chata'os that should be burned (i.e. inner Chata'os) are Metamei Begadim (of those who burn them).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection (R. Meir):</span> We already know that from 'Lechaper'!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Meir?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (and summation of R. Yirmeyah's answer):</span> R. Yehudah uses 'Lechaper' for the Gezerah Shavah (of R. Shimon).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	36a (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> '(Mum Kol) Davar Ra' teaches that if blood of a Chatas entered the Heichal (really, it was slaughtered with intent to enter its blood), it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</span> If the blood was brought into the Heichal b'Shogeg, it is Kosher;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	This implies that if he brought it in b'Mezid, it is Pasul. We established that this is only when 'Kiper' (he threw it inside). In the Beraisa he disqualifies for mere intent to bring it in!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	26a (Mishnah):</span> If blood that must be put on top of the Mizbe'ach was put on the bottom, or vice-versa, or blood that must be put on the inner Mizbe'ach was put on the outer Mizbe'ach, or vice-versa, the Korban is Pasul, but there is no Kares.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Shmuel):</span> The meat is Pasul (forbidden), but the owner was Yotzei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span>	He holds that (putting blood in) the wrong place is like (putting it in) the right place.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span>	Since the Korban already atoned, another Zerikah would not permit the meat.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	92b - Question (R. Avin):</span> If blood inside the neck of Chatas ha'Of entered the Heichal after Melikah, what is the law? If its neck is like a Kli Shares, this is like Dam Chatas Behemah that entered the Heichal in a Kali, so it is Pasul. Or, perhaps 'mi'Damah' applies only when Dam enters by itself, but not when it enters inside the flesh!</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mudashim 2:15):</span> If blood of a Chatas entered inside, and it did not atone, rather, it was brought out without any Haza'ah, if it was brought in b'Shogeg it is Kosher, and we throw it outside, for it did not atone in the Kodesh. If it was brought in b'Mezid, it is Pasul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Ri Korkus:</span> The Rambam rules like R. Yehudah, because R. Eliezer is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai, or he was excommunicated), and the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon. Also, R. Yehudah is the intermediate opinion. The Gemara asked whether R. Yehudah discusses when he was Mechaper, or when he was not. This implies that b'Shogeg, in any case it is Kosher, even if Kiper. If not (rather, b'Shogeg it is Pasul if he was Mechaper), surely he holds like R. Eliezer, for if he held like R. Shimon, R. Yehudah would equate Shogeg and Mezid! However, the Rambam is Machshir Shogeg only if he was not Mechaper. It seems that he holds that the Gemara was unsure about both of these. If R. Yehudah holds like R. Shimon regarding Mezid, he must be totally Machshir Shogeg. If he holds like R. Eliezer regarding Mezid, he must be Machshir Shogeg only if he was not Mechaper. However, this is difficult, for the Gemara concluded that he holds like R. Shimon. Why does the Rambam disqualify b'Mezid even if he was not Mechaper, and b'Shogeg it is Pasul if he was Mechaper? Perhaps the Rambam's text did not infer 'if he brought it in b'Mezid, it is Pasul', and the Gemara asked when R. Yehudah says that b'Shogeg it is Kosher. If so, the verse does not discuss Shogeg at all. Rashi connotes that the inference is not in some texts. We conclude that he expounds the Gezeirah Shavah to disqualify only when he was Mechaper, i.e. b'Shogeg, but b'Mezid it is Pasul even without Kiper, like the verse connotes. The verse teaches about Shogeg and Mezid. However, we could explain that the Beraisa discusses Mezid, but Shogeg is always Kosher! If he (R. Yirmeyah) resolves from reasoning, why did he bring the Beraisa? Perhaps he knew that we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah. If so, the verse is not only about Mezid, for the verse of Se'ir Chatas is not limited to Mezid. A Gezeirah Shavah is not only half-way. However, if the verse discusses Shogeg, and all the more so Mezid is Pasul, it is a full Gezeirah Shavah. 'Lechaper' disqualifies Mezid even if he was not Mechaper. Alternatively, the Rambam explains R. Eliezer and R. Shimon oppositely to Rashi. We conclude that R. Yehudah holds like R. Eliezer. Alternatively, the Rambam does not rely on the Gemara's conclusion. Even if Lechaper is not needed for the Gezeirah Shavah, it is better to expound 'Chatas-Chatas', which is extra, to include everything that is burned. The Safek was not resolved, therefore, the Rambam rules stringently. This requires investigation. My second Perush is best. On 36a, the Gemara concluded thatTana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion. I.e. the Tana who says that R. Yehudah disqualifies only when he was Mechaper argues with the Tana of our Mishnah. We can explain the Mishnah like that Beraisa, i.e. when he was not Mechaper. The Rambam rules like our Mishnah against the Beraisa.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> The Rambam understands that R. Yehudah discusses R. Shimon's law. R. Shimon is Machshir when he was not Mechaper only if the blood was brought in b'Shogeg.If it was brought in b'Mezid, even if it was not Mechaper, it is Pasul. This is difficult, for the Gemara asked whether R. Yehudah discusses when he was Mechaper, or when he was not. Rashi explains, that we ask if this is when he was Mechaper, like R. Shimon, or even when he was not Mechaper, like R. Eliezer. We conclude that R. Yehudah needs 'Lechaper' for the Gezeirah Shavah, i.e. like R. Shimon. On Daf 36a, we say that we established that R. Yehudah disqualifies Mezid only if he was Mechaper. Why does the Rambam disqualify b'Mezid even if he was not Mechaper? The Ri Korkus requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Birkas ha'Zevach (36a DH veha'Tanan):</span> The Rambam holds that Lechaper (it is Pasul only if he atoned) applies only b'Shogeg. When he was Mezid, mere intent to bring it inside disqualifies.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Lechem Mishneh:</span> The Kesef Mishneh brought from Ri Korkus that one Tana holds that R. Yehudah disqualified only if he was Mechaper, and the Rambam rules like the Tana who holds that he disqualifies even if he was not Mechaper. In any case this is difficult! Whether he learns R. Eliezer's Gezeirah Shavah that we discuss when he was Mechaper, or R. Shimon's Gezeirah Shavah that we discuss when he was not Mechaper, what is the source to disqualify Shogeg when he was Mechaper? If he holds that R. Shimon discusses when he was Mechaper, what is the source to obligate for Mezid without Kiper? If the Gezeirah Shavah is only for Shogeg, what is the source to distinguish? Also, why did we need to say that Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion? The only source is that 'Lechaper' is extra for him to expound. We can say that it is for the Gezeirah Shavah! Since even the opposing opinion learns the Gezeirah Shavah to teach that Shogeg disqualifies only if Kiper, we can say that also R. Yehudah learns only this! What is the source to say Tana'im argue about his opinion? We can answer that the Tana must hold that R. Yehudah holds like R. Eliezer. R. Shimon requires Kiper even for Mezid, for the verse primarily discusses Mezid. The Tana of 36a learns the Gezeirah Shavah regarding Kiper, and the Tana of the Mishnah learns it regarding Lo Kiper. Even without the Gezeirah Shavah we would say that the verse discusses Kiper, like the connotation of 'Lechaper'. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches unlike this, that it discusses Lo Kiper. R. Yehudah established the verse simply (b'Mezid), and also learns (b'Shogeg) from the Gezeirah Shavah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Chaim ha'Levi:</span> The Rambam distinguished Shogeg from Mezid only when it was entered in order to be Mechaper, but if he was Mechaper, in any case it is Pasul. This is difficult, for (only) R. Yehudah is the Tana who ia Machshir Shogeg, and he holds that entering (even b'Mezid) with intent for Kaparah disqualifies only if Kiper! If so, we must say that b'Shogeg it is Kosher even if Kiper. On 36a we say that the distinction is when he was Mechaper. Why does the Rambam disqualify even Shogeg when he was Mechaper? It would seem that the Rambam is Machshir Shogeg even if Kiper. He did not say 'for he was not Mechaper' to teach why Shogeg is Kosher. Rather, it refers to what he said above, 'and we throw it outside.' If already he was Mechaper, we hold (26b) that if outer blood was thrown inside, the owner got atonement, for not in the place is like in the place. Therefore, he does not throw again outside. If he (did not yet atone, and) would throw outside, also the meat would be Kosher. If he was Yotzei through Zerikah inside, the meat is Pasul, like it says on 26b. Tosfos (26b DH Amar) says that 'not in the place is like in the place' does not apply to Zerikah of outer Korbanos inside. The Rambam (Halachah 10) explicitly disagrees. However, the Rambam's words 'because he was not Mechaper in the Kodesh' connotes that he discusses the law of the verse (that if the blood was brought in, it is Pasul). According to what I said, it does not depend on being brought into the Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Chaim ha'Levi:</span> Rather, the Rambam distinguishes Shogeg from Mezid because merely bringing in disqualifies only with intent Lechaper. Therefore, when he was Shogeg it is as if he did not intend Lechaper, for he erred. When he was Shogeg we ignore his intent only if it was not fulfilled. His intent was Batel. If he was Mechaper, the Rambam disqualifies even Shogeg, for his intent to be Mechaper was fulfilled, so it is not Batel. Kaparah in the Heichal disqualifies, whether on the Mizbe'ach, on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim (between the staves of the Aron). However, only Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach uproots the law of Shogeg, for even though he erred, he truly atoned. There is no source that Zerikah on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim atones. Therefore, since he was Shogeg, even if Kiper (i.e. he did Zerikah) it is not considered intent Lechaper (since it did not atone). R. Yehudah requires Mezid (to disqualify) only regarding Zerikah on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim, for then he did not atone. Therefore, he said that when he was not Mechaper, it is Pasul only if he was Mezid. This excludes Zerikah on the inner Mizbe'ach, for then he was Mechaper.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Likutei Halachos (Zevachim 82a):</span> The Mishnah opposes the Beraisa (36a) only because we explained it based on the Beraisa on 83a. Why does the Rambam rule like 83a, against 36a? The Gemara said 'we hold that R. Yehudah disqualifies only if Kiper'! It is because Rava and the Sugya on 92a hold that entering (b'Mezid) disqualifies even without Kiper.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE NEED FOR THE VERSE OF 'MI'DAMAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the possibility that if meat from a Korban was brought into the Heichal, it becomes Pasul. The Gemara suggests that the Korban becomes Pasul based on a Kal va'Chomer: If blood that is taken outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash does not cause the rest of the blood of that Korban to become disqualified with regard to Zerikah, and yet the meat of the Korban that is taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash becomes Pasul, then certainly when blood is taken into the Heichal, which <i>does</i> cause the rest of the blood to become Pasul (which shows that entering the Heichal is a more severe infraction than exiting the Beis ha'Mikdash), the meat that goes into the Heichal should become Pasul as well. The Gemara answers that this is not correct. The verse states, 'mi'Damah' (Vayikra 6:23) and 'Damah' (Vayikra 10:18). These words teach that only blood which is supposed to remain in the Azarah but which enters the Heichal becomes Pasul and causes the Korban to become Pasul, unlike meat that enters the Heichal, which itself remains valid. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Damah) explains that one of the times where 'Damah' is stated is extra, and thus it teaches that only blood becomes Pasul upon entering the Heichal, and not meat.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Damah) has difficulty with this Gemara. The verse which teaches that blood that enters the Heichal disqualifies a Korban reads, '... Asher Yuva mi'Damah El Ohel Mo'ed l'Chaper' -- 'Any Chatas whose blood is brought into the Ohel Mo'ed (the Heichal) in order to atone' (Vayikra 6:23). The verse clearly shows that the problem exists only when the blood is brought <i>to atone</i> (i.e. to perform Zerikah), but not when it is brought into the Heichal for a purpose that has nothing to do with atonement. Since meat has nothing to do with the atonement provided by the Korban, why should meat be included in this Halachah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> refutes the underlying logic of the question. It indeed is possible that the Torah says 'l'Chaper' with regard to blood in order to teach that blood -- the importance of which is that it is used for Zerikah and causes the atonement achieved by the Korban -- disqualifies the Korban only when it is brought into the Heichal for the purpose of atoning. A Pesul caused by bringing the meat into the Heichal would be derived from the Gemara's Kal va'Chomer from blood, and it would not be necessary to bring the meat into the Heichal with intent to attain atonement. Accordingly, the extra verse of 'Damah' is needed in order to exclude meat from this Halachah.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Tzon Kodashim suggests that the answer lies in the words of the Gemara in Pesachim (59b). The Gemara there quotes the verse, 'v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem' -- 'And they shall eat those things with which the atonement was made' (Shemos 29:33). A Beraisa derives from this verse that when the Kohanim eat the meat of the Korban, the owner of the Korban attains atonement. Although the Zerikah is the primary Avodah that atones for the owner, the Gemara there teaches that the Kohen's eating is also called an atonement by the Torah. Accordingly, it is understandable that the Gemara assumes that meat is also called 'l'Chaper' -- such as when the Kohanim bring it into the Heichal to eat it there and thereby provide a degree of atonement for the owner (see 63a).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> answers that when the Gemara suggests that meat should also become Pasul, it is not referring to meat alone. Rather, it is referring to a case in which the blood from the Shechitah is still clinging to the neck of the animal. The Gemara is teaching that blood that enters the Heichal when it is still part of the meat still may be used for Zerikah. Even though the blood should fall under the category of 'l'Chaper' if it is brought there for the purpose of performing Zerikah, it nevertheless is not Pasul because in its present form it is considered part of the meat and it is not yet considered a separate entity of blood. (See Mitzpeh Eisan for a second answer.)
</p><p>
This answer has strong support in the Gemara later (92b), which states clearly that if blood on the neck of the animal is brought into the Heichal, it is not considered Pasul.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAZON YECHEZKEL</b> writes that this answer is alluded to by the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:17) as well. The Rambam rules that if a person brings <i>the Chatas itself</i> into the Heichal, it remains valid, as the verse says, 'Asher Yuva <i>mi'Damah</i>' (Vayikra 6:23), implying that only bringing the <i>blood</i> into the Heichal disqualifies the Korban, but not bringing the meat into the Heichal. The Chazon Yechezkel explains that the Rambam's usage of the words 'the Chatas itself' (and not 'meat from the Korban') implies that this case is similar to the case mentioned in the Gemara later (92b), in which the entire Korban was brought into the Heichal in order to perform the Kabalas ha'Dam and the Zerikah there. The Gemara, therefore, must teach that although the animal is brought 'l'Chaper,' the blood does not become Pasul since it is still considered meat at this stage. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) LEAVING 'PASUL' ITEMS ON THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah records a dispute between Rebbi Yehoshua and Raban Gamliel with regard to which items the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh, such that if they are placed upon the Mizbe'ach they may not be removed, even if they are Pasul. Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that only items which would have been burned on the Mizbe'ach had they been valid are allowed to remain on the Mizbe'ach when they are Pasul. Raban Gamliel argues that even an item that was not supposed to be burned on the Mizbe'ach may be left on the Mizbe'ach if it is Pasul. The Mishnah explains that according to Raban Gamliel, even Nesachim (wine libations), which are poured on the Mizbe'ach and not burned, and blood, which is placed on the Mizbe'ach and not burned, may remain on the Mizbe'ach when placed there, b'Di'eved, when they are Pasul.
</p><p>
The Mishnah makes an additional statement in the name of Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon says that when a Zevach is brought together with its Nesachim, and either the Zevach, the Nesachim, or both are Pasul, the Zevach may remain on the Mizbe'ach but the Nesachim must be removed. The Beraisa later (83b) explains that Rebbi Shimon maintains that the only type of item that may remain on the Mizbe'ach is that which is similar to a Korban Olah, in that <i>it</i> is the item which the person pledged to bring, and not <i>something that must accompany</i> the item which the person pledged to bring. Therefore, the Nesachim -- which are brought only to accompany the Korban which the person pledged to bring -- may not remain on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Every Korban Olah and Shelamim that a person pledges is accompanied not only by Nesachim, but by a Minchah offering as well. The Nesachim is a set amount of wine libations (which depends on the type of animal), and the Minchah is a set amount of flour offering (which depends on the type of animal). If Rebbi Shimon maintains that an item which accompanies a pledge is not left to remain on the Mizbe'ach when Pasul, then he presumably also maintains that the Kometz of the Minchah -- like the Nesachim -- is removed from the Mizbe'ach if it is Pasul. Why, then, does Rebbi Shimon mention only that the Nesachim are removed from the Mizbe'ach and not that the Minchah -- which should be identical to the Nesachim -- also must be removed from the Mizbe'ach?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) In the Gemara later (beginning of 84a), Reish Lakish explains that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Raban Gamliel that even an item that is not normally burned on the Mizbe'ach (but is merely placed on the Mizbe'ach) may be left on the Mizbe'ach if it is Pasul. What is his source for this interpretation of Rebbi Shimon's opinion? (See Rashi there, DH l'Divrei Chulan.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Reish Lakish learns this from the words of Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah. Rebbi Shimon says that Nesachim are removed from the Mizbe'ach, while the Zevach remains on the Mizbe'ach. These words imply that Rebbi Shimon refers specifically to Nesachim which are brought together with a Zevach, and not to Nesachim which are pledged independently. Accordingly, it may be inferred that when the Nesachim are pledged independently, they <i>are</i> left on the Mizbe'ach when they are Pasul. This demonstrates that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Raban Gamliel, who says that Nesachim and blood are left to remain on the Mizbe'ach. It is not consistent with the view of Rebbi Yehoshua, because according to Rebbi Yehoshua, Nesachim -- which are not normally burned on the Mizbe'ach -- are not left on the Mizbe'ach when they are Pasul. 153
</p><p>
Perhaps this is why Rebbi Shimon mentions specifically Nesachim and not Minchah; he wants to show that <i>even</i> Nesachim are to remain on the Mizbe'ach when they are brought independently. It is obvious that a Minchah offering is left on the Mizbe'ach when brought independently, because even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees (since the Kometz of a Minchah offering is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) writes that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah (see also <b>BARTENURA</b>). The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> questions this explanation. If Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua, then why does the Beraisa (on 83b) state that Rebbi Shimon requires that the Nesachim be removed from the Mizbe'ach because they are not brought by themselves? Even if they would be brought by themselves, they would be removed from the Mizbe'ach according to Rebbi Yehoshua! Moreover, the Keren Orah points out that this explanation seems to contradict what Reish Lakish says later (on 84a).
</p><p>
The Keren Orah does not answer his first question. However, from the fact that the Rambam makes no mention at all that according to Rebbi Shimon, any item that accompanies a pledge is removed from the Mizbe'ach, it is evident that the Rambam has a different way of understanding the Gemara. Apparently, the Rambam understands that Rebbi Shimon is merely adding to the words of Rebbi Yehoshua, and he is not arguing. The Beraisa (83b) means that Rebbi Shimon is adding to Rebbi Yehoshua's statement and he is saying that even though the Korban which the Nesachim accompany is burned on the Mizbe'ach, this does not suffice to make the Nesachim qualify as something burned on the Mizbe'ach. The Beraisa means that the item itself must be something that is burned, and not that it is merely associated with something that is normally burned on the Mizbe'ach. This is why the Rambam writes that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua.
</p><p>
According to the Rambam, it is clear why Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah mentions Nesachim. The Kometz of the Minchah offering, which normally is burned on the Mizbe'ach, indeed would be left on the Mizbe'ach since it is normally burned itself.
</p><p>
The Keren Orah does suggest an answer to his second question. The Gemara later (91b) implies that according to Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' (an act that is done for a permitted purpose, but which might result in an inadvertent transgression) is permissible, it may be assumed that wine which is donated is not poured into the libation pipes on the Mizbe'ach, but rather the wine is poured directly onto the flames atop the Mizbe'ach. Wine is poured into the pipes only when it comes as an accompaniment (Nesachim) for a Korban. (This concurs with the opinion of Shmuel in the Gemara there.) Since wine that is brought independently is burned according to Rebbi Shimon, he will agree that the wine, when it is Pasul, is left on the Mizbe'ach even though he agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua that only items that are normally burned on the Mizbe'ach may be left there when they are Pasul.
</p><p>
(According to this, when the Gemara (84a) mentions that if not for Reish Lakish's statement, one might have thought that Nesachim which accompany a Zevach are also left on the Mizbe'ach when they are brought on the following day (and not on the same day as the Zevach), the Gemara means that one might have thought that when the Nesachim are brought the following day, they are poured on the flame like Nesachim which are pledged independently.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MUST THE YEVAMAH UNTIE THE SHOE BEFORE CHALITZAH? <span class='indexentry'>[Chalitzah: untying]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	44a (Mishnah):</span> Pigul applies to an Olah, for the blood permits the limbs to the Mizbe'ach. It applies to Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim, for their blood permits the Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	83b (Ula):</span> If Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim Alu before Zerikah, Lo Yerdu, for they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevamos 101a (Mishnah):</span> From the knee and below, the Chalitzah is valid. From the knee and above, the Chalitzah is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	102a (R. Yanai):</span> Whether he untied the shoe and she removed it, or she untied the shoe and he removed it, the Chalitzah is invalid. She must untie the shoe and remove it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ameimar):</span> The Yavam must press his foot on the ground.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ameimar):</span> If one's foot is reversed, he may not do Chalitzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	104b - Rabanan:</span> If a Yevamah spat (at her Yavam), she must do Chalitzah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Spitting disqualifies her from doing Yibum.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	This is unlike R. Akiva. It is plausible to compare spitting to Eimurim. When the Eimurim are not around, offering them is not Me'akev (requisite for) eating the meat, but when they are around, they are Me'akev (one may not eat the meat before offering them). Even so, R. Akiva does not equate them. He says that failure to spit does not invalidate Chalitzah (even though it is possible).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	Surely, he holds that spitting alone does not forbid Yibum!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	This is unlike R. Eliezer. He holds that two things permit her (removing the shoe and spitting). In such a case, one does not permit without the other! Rather, it is like Rebbi;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beraisa - Rebbi):</span> The two loaves brought on Shavu'os become Kodesh only through Shechitah of the lambs offered with them;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	If Shechitah and Zerikah of the lambs were done Lishman (with intent for the Mitzvah), the loaves become Kodesh. If Shechitah was Lo Lishmah and Zerikah was Lishman, the loaves are not Kodesh. If Shechitah was Lishmah but Zerikah was not Lishman, the loaves are Kodesh and not Kodesh;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span>	R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, they are Kodesh only if Shechitah and Zerikah were Lishman.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif (Yevamos 33b):</span> The Mishnah discusses when the shoe was tied above and below the knee. This teaches that his Shok (usually, this refers to the thigh. Here it refers to the lower leg) is called me'Al Raglo. Since she untied it, this is called Chalitzah 'me'Al Raglo.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rif and Rosh (ibid. and 12:7):</span> The Yerushalmi says that the Ikar (primary part) of Chalitzah is untying the straps. The Halachah follows Ameimar.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Yibum 4:16):</span> If he untied the shoe and she removed it, or vice-versa, the Chalitzah is Pasul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> We do not let her marry (a stranger) until she removes the shoe from most of the foot. However, perhaps untying the straps suffices to forbid her to do Yibum mid'Oraisa. We find that R. Eliezer requires spitting *and* removing the shoe to permit, but doing one of these forbids Yibum. A Tosefta (12:9) says that Chalitzah is Pasul if he untied and she removed, or if most of the leg came out, i.e. she untied and he removed. (Rivan in Or Zaru'a explains like this.) The Tosefta discusses Torah law. On 104b we say that when two things permit, one works (partially) by itself. However, this does not apply to one matter (Chalitzah, i.e. removing his shoe) which consists of two parts (untying and removing). Half a matter does nothing. Even though we find that if the Kometz caught fire, it may be burned at night, even though it does not permit the Shirayim until the majority catches fire (Menachos 26b), that is different. Once it caught fire, it is the Mizbe'ach's food. To permit the Shirayim, the majority must catch fire. The Gemara compares Chalitzah to Shechitah of the lambs, which permits another matter (bread). It must be done Lishmah; then, it takes effect on the bread. Also Chalitzah permits another matter and it must be Lishmah. Therefore, untying or removing by itself should not forbid. The Gemara (105a) concludes in the second version that the order of Chalitzah is not Me'akev. Spitting before removing the shoe is valid. If so, we can say that spitting by itself is a Matir (something that permits). At the end of Chalitzah it does not permit, because Chalitzah is strong and permits by itself. Spitting at the beginning is strong enough to forbid to the brothers. This is unlike Eimurim. The Mitzvah to burn them is Me'akev, but burning them before Zerikah is not a Mitzvah. Even though Ula says that if they came up before Zerikah Lo Yerdu, for they became 'food' of the Mizbe'ach, just like anything proper for the Mizbe'ach. The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh it if no action need be done to it. Even so, we say that blood permits Eimurim to the Mizbe'ach (Zevachim 44a).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> The Yerushalmi says that if he removed the shoe and she untied or she removed the shoe and he untied, he cannot return (to do Yibum), for they are not both in it (she did not do both actions), or they are out of order. These reasons argue about a case when she (previously removed and) later untied. Surely we do not discuss when he untied, she removed his shoe, and he put on a shoe and she untied it. Surely two actions on two shoes do not join! Rather, after she removed the shoe, the straps were still tied to his leg, and she untied them. This is not the way of Chalitzah. Or Zaru'a says that if she untied and he removed, she may do Yibum. This is unlike the Yerushalmi and Tosefta.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (ibid.):</span> He must press his foot down so she will toil to remove the shoe. Sometimes Beis Din's shoe is bigger than his foot, and it seems that it comes off by itself. The Yerushalmi connotes that our Mishnah discusses when it is tied above or below the knee. Rabbeinu Nisim and the Rif say so. This is astounding. Why should it make a difference where it is tied? As long as she removes it (this is Chalitzah)! Their sandals could not stay in the foot without being tied. It says that he ties it until he can walk in it. This shows that tying is primarily so it will stay on his foot. Since it cannot stay on without being tied, if he untied it, it is as if the shoe fell off, for it is destined to fall off by itself. Likewise, if it was tied above the knee, the Ikar of what keeps it on the foot (the knot) is not 'me'Al Raglo' (rather, it is on the thigh, which is me'Al me'Al Raglo). If a shoe stays on without tying, it is Kosher for Chalitzah even if it is tied above the knee or not at all. The Torah does not hint to tying, and there is no tradition from Moshe from Sinai about this. The Yerushalmi does not exclude one whose foot was cut off. Alternatively, it teaches that enough must remain below the knee to tie a shoe below the knee.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tur (EH 169):</span> If he untied the knot and she removed the shoe from his foot, or vice-versa, the Chalitzah is Pasul. The Rosh disqualifies when he unties only if he could walk in it only if it is tied. Then, untying it is like removing it, since it will cause it to fall off. If he could walk in it without tying it, and she removed it, the Chalitzah is Kosher, even if he untied it. If a shoe can stay on his foot when he walks without being tied, Chalitzah in it is Kosher b'Di'eved without being tied. The primary part of Chalitzah is untying and removing it. The Rosh says that he must press his foot down so she will toil to remove the shoe. Sometimes Beis Din's shoe is bigger than his foot, and it seems that it comes off by itself. The Rif and Rambam say that Chalitzah is Kosher only below the knee, i.e. untying. If it was tied above the knee, the Chalitzah is Pasul. If so, one whose foot was cut off, even below the knee, cannot do Chalitzah. R. Chananel says that the Gemara means that if his foot was cut below the knee, he can do Chalitzah.</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 169:32):</span> If he untied the knot and she removed the shoe from his foot, or vice-versa, the Chalitzah is Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> Some say that this is only if he could not walk in it without tying it. If he could walk in it without tying it, and she removed it, the Chalitzah is Kosher, even if he untied it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shmuel (31):</span> The Rosh holds that if he can walk in it, it need not be tied, or it can be tied above the knee. We do not find any Posek who disagrees. We can say that they agree.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Prishah (56):</span> Since it is Kosher if it was not tied at all, all the more so it is Kosher if it was tied and he untied it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Noda bi'Yehudah (1 EH 94):</span> It is normal to raise one's foot before removing the shoe. Only a fool would press it on the ground and make it hard to remove it! If so, lifting the foot is part of Chalitzah, just like the Rif says that untying the straps is a part. One lifts the foot after untying the straps. It is easier to untie while the foot is pressed on the ground. Therefore, if the Yavam lifted his foot, he began the Chalitzah, so it is Pasul. She must do the entire Chalitzah herself. This is why the Mechaber disqualifies when he untied the straps. The previous Halachah (Sa'if 32) disqualifies when he did not press his foot down. Both of these are due to the same reason. Since he did not press down, he began the Chalitzah. This answers the Beis Shmuel's question (why the Mechaber rules unlike the Rosh). I answer that the Mechaber holds like the Tur, who says that the Rif and Rambam disqualify (when he did not press down), and all the more so when he untied. The Rosh is Machshir when he did not press down, and also when he untied.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Hagahas Rav Baruch Frankel:</span> The Rosh says that there is no Torah source or tradition that the shoe must be tied if it stays on without tying. In such a case, she needs only to remove it, therefore, he may untie it. This is unrelated to pressing the foot down. The Rosh holds that he must press because sometimes Beis Din's shoe is too big, and if he would not press down, it looks like it comes off by itself. The Rif and Rambam hold that he must press in order that his heel will cling to the shoe, in order to fulfill 'me'Al Raglo.' Seder Chalitzah (after Siman 169, Sa'if 66) says so. This explains our custom, that after he presses down, she holds his shoe with her left hand while lifting it with her right hand, so the shoe will cling to his heel even while she lifts it. Her right hand does the entire Chalitzah. Her left hand does not help to remove it at all; it only keeps the shoe clinging to his foot.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'CHUTZ L'MEKOMO' AND 'IM ALAH LO YERED'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah lists the many ways in which a Korban (or parts of a Korban) may become Pasul and yet is left on the Mizbe'ach once it was already placed there. One of these is the Pesul of Chutz l'Mekomo.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Chutz l'Mekomo) asks that this Mishnah poses a serious difficulty on the view of Rava, who says in Menachos (79a) that if one slaughters a Korban Chatas and has in mind a thought of Chutz l'Mekomo, the meat of the Korban must be taken off of the Mizbe'ach if it was placed there. How can Rava make that statement in light of the Mishnah here? Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> in Menachos who says that the Gemara's text in Menachos should read 'Todah,' not 'Chatas,' but that emendation still does not seem to answer the question.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that in fact Rabeinu Tam's emendation of the text from 'Chatas' to 'Todah' helps answer the question. One cannot transgress Me'ilah with the limbs of a Korban which is Kodshim Kalim until a proper Zerikah has done been performed. Since, in the case in Menachos, the Korban became Pasul during the Shechitah (because of a thought of Chutz l'Mekomo), the limbs of the Korban never attained the status of being a proper Korban after Zerikah. Accordingly, the limbs have no place on the Mizbe'ach at all, even if they were placed there mistakenly. This is in contrast to Kodshei Kodashim, the limbs of which are subject to Me'ilah already before the Zerikah. This is also in contrast with a Pesul of Chutz l'Zemano of Kodshim Kalim, in which case the Zerikah is significant because it creates the potential liability of Kares for a person who eats the meat of the Korban. According to Rava, the Zerikah of a Korban of Kodshim Kalim which has become Pasul because of Chutz l'Mekomo is inconsequential, and therefore it does not make the meat of the Korban fit to be on the Mizbe'ach at all. The Mishnah here is discussing the Pesul of Chutz l'Mekomo of Kodshei Kodashim. Since the limbs of an animal which is Kodshei Kodashim are already subject to Me'ilah before the Zerikah, they are fit enough to be left on the Mizbe'ach once they were wrongfully placed there.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Nidah (40b, DH Chutz l'Mekomo) explains that the Gemara here (84b) maintains that the reason why the limbs of a Korban which is Pasul because of Chutz l'Mekomo do not have to be removed from the Mizbe'ach is that this Pesul is comparable to the Pesul of Chutz l'Zemano. Rava in Menachos (79a) states his ruling according to Rebbi Yehudah's understanding of Rebbi Yehoshua, who maintains that Chutz l'Mekomo is <i>not</i> comparable to Chutz l'Zemano.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (79a, DH v'Hadar Bei Rava) explains that Rabeinu Tam's text answers the question in a different manner. Although the Pesul of Chutz l'Mekomo usually is comparable to Chutz l'Zemano, Rava refers specifically to the case of a Todah. In the case of a Todah, the Pesul of Chutz l'Mekomo is not comparable to Chutz l'Zemano, because the bread that accompanies the Todah is considered somewhat distinct from the Korban itself. Just as Chutz l'Mekomo is not compared to Chutz l'Zemano with regard to the Lachmei Todah, a Korban Todah which is Pasul because of Chutz l'Mekomo is not compared to one which is Pasul because of Chutz l'Zemano, which is why it must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if it was wrongfully placed there. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE SOURCE FOR THE REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE CERTAIN DISQUALIFIED KORBANOS FROM ATOP THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara explains Rebbi Yehudah's opinion about what items must be removed from the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yehudah expounds three phrases: 'Zos,' 'Hi,' and 'ha'Olah' (specifically the letter 'Heh' of 'ha'Olah'). These three phrases teach that there are three cases in which something (which is Pesulo ba'Kodesh) which was placed on the Mizbe'ach must be taken down. These three cases are: the animal was slaughtered at night; the animal's blood spilled and therefore no proper Zerikah was performed; the blood was taken outside of the Azarah before the Zerikah was performed.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Prat) asks that Rebbi Yehudah's opinion seems problematic in light of the Gemara in Me'ilah (2b). The Gemara there says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, if a Korban of Kodshei Kodashim was slaughtered in the south part of the Azarah, it not only becomes Pasul, but if its flesh is mistakenly placed on the Mizbe'ach, it must be removed. According to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that nothing is removed from the Mizbe'ach unless a verse teaches so, why must the flesh of Kodshei Kodashim be removed from the Mizbe'ach in such a case, if none of the three verses refers to such a case?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the Gemara earlier (36a) derives from the verse, 'Kol Davar Ra' -- 'any bad thing' (Devarim 17:1), that a Korban of Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south part of the Azarah, and the blood of an ordinary Korban of Kodshim Kalim which is brought into the Heichal, is Pasul. Tosfos suggests that this verse is also the source that these items of Pesul must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if they are placed there.
</p><p>
This proposal of Tosfos is difficult to understand. On what basis does Tosfos assume that the verse teaches such a novel law? The <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> explains that Tosfos understands that the Torah places the previous words in the verse, 'Asher Yiheyeh Vo Mum' -- 'in which there will be a blemish,' next to the words 'Kol Davar Ra' -- 'any bad thing,' to teach that 'Kol Davar Ra' has the status of 'Asher Yiheyeh Vo Mum.' This means that a Korban of Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the south part of the Azarah has the status of a Ba'al Mum, which must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if placed there.
</p><p>
The <b>CHOK NASAN</b> challenges this explanation. According to this explanation, if the blood of a Korban of Kodshim Kalim goes into the Heichal, its limbs also should be removed from the Mizbe'ach, since it, too, is derived from the verse of 'Kol Davar Ra.'
</p><p>
(b) In his second answer, Tosfos explains that Kodshei Kodashim slaughtered in the wrong part of the Azarah are compared to Shechutei Chutz. (See Tosfos to 68b, DH Amar Rav.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> KEDUSHAH OF ADDITIONS TO HASHEM'S NAME <span class='indexentry'>[Hashem's name: Kedushah: suffixes]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	84a (Mishnah):</span> If Kodesh became Pasul due to any of the following, if Alah, Lo Yered:</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	Linah (it was not offered within the proper time), Yotzei (it left its permitted place), Tum'ah...</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> Linah of blood is 'Kosher' (i.e. if Alah, Lo Yered), for Eimurim are Kosher after Linah. Yotzei is Kosher, because this is permitted on a Bamah. Tamei is Kosher, because this is permitted for Korbanos Tzibur (if they cannot be offered b'Taharah).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> Can we learn something done improperly (Linah of Eimurim, or Yotzei) from something proper (Linah of meat, or Yotzei on a Bamah)?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Indeed, the Tana relies on 'Zos Toras ha'Olah' (to include these).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	86a (Mishnah):</span> Just like the Mizbe'ach and ramp are Mekadesh what is proper for them, Klei Shares are Mekadesh what is proper for them.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevu'os 35b (Beraisa):</span> Any letters appended to Hashem's name, whether before or after it, may be erased;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span>	If 'Lamed', 'Beis', 'Vav', 'Mem', 'Shin', 'Hei', or 'Kaf' is prefixed to Hashem's name, it may be erased.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span>	The letters 'Nun-Vav', 'Hei-Mem', or 'Chaf-Mem' suffixed to 'Elokei' may be erased.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span>	Acherim say, letters suffixed may not be erased, because Hashem's name that precedes them makes them Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Huna):</span> The Halachah follows Acherim.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 6:3):</span> One may erase any letter prefixed to Hashem's name, e.g. Lamed in la'Shem, Beis in bei'Lokim. They do not have Kedushas ha'Shem. One may not erase a letter suffixed to Hashem's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem'. They are like other letters of Hashem's name, of His name is Mekadesh them. Even though they became Kodesh and one may not erase them, one who erases them is lashed only mid'Rabanan.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Shevu'os 4:23):</span> One may erase letter prefixed to Hashem's name, e.g. Lamed in la'Shem, Beis in ba'Shem. The Halachah follows Acherim, who say that one may not erase a letter suffixed to Hashem's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem' for Hashem's name was Mekadesh them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharil (192):</span> One may erase vowels or Ta'amim (marks showing the cantillation) of Hashem's name. They are like a Perush that was given orally to Moshe Rabbeinu. Even though we learn much from them, it is like a mere Perush. The Sifri learns an Isur to erase a letter from Hashem's name. Even though they are like the Neshamah of the letters (R. Bechaye Bereishis 18:3), based on Kabalah we should not erase any part of Torah, for every word, letter, crown, vowel and Ta'am hints to what names of Hash-m hint at. We do not add to what Chachamim forbade to erase. If the wrong vowel was written, even the next letter is erased, like it says in Maseches Sofrim (5:2. If one wrote Hashem's name, and erred and wrote 'Yehudah', he converts the Dalet to a Hei (i.e. he adds a leg to it) and erases the Hei (after Hashem's name is complete).) If one needed to write Hashem's name, and intended to write 'Yehudah', and omitted the Dalet, he erases the entire naem and writes it again. However, there Hashem's name was written without intent. We cannot learn to a case in which it was written properly, just the vowel or Ta'am is wrong. In any case we say that there is no Kedushah through a mistake, like it says that he makes the Dalet into a Hei. (The Dalet received Kedushah, and he merely completes it to be a Hei, because he intended for Hashem's name.) We find that the Mizbe'ach and Kli Shares are Mekadesh only what is Kosher to go on or in them. In such cases (without Kedushah) we can say that Acherim (who forbid erasing letters suffixed to Hashem's name) would agree (that a suffix may be erased).</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 276:9):</span> One may not erase even one letter of the seven names that may not be erased, nor from letters suffixed to Hashem's name, e.g. 'Chaf' of 'Elokecha' or 'Chaf-Mem' of 'Elokeichem'. The seven names are Yud Kei Vov Kei, Shem Adnus, Kel, Eloka, Elokim, Shakai and Tzevakos. Some say also Echyeh Asher Echyeh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah):</span> I do not know why the Tur taught ha'Elokim. He already taught Elokim. It seems that no one says that the Hei in front is Kodesh! The Rambam rules that it is not Kodesh. Perhaps the text of the Tur should say 'Elokei ha'Elokim' (without Elokim). However, this is not when they are next to each other, for then only the first is Kodesh (Maseches Sofrim 4:4). The latter refers to judges and nobles.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	R. Akiva Eiger:</span> The Yerushalmi and Medrash Rabah say that both of them are Kodesh. This requires investigation.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Levush:</span> ('V'Nitatztem Es Mizbechosam... v'Ibadtem Es Shemam (destroy altars... and the name of idolatry); Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem' forbids erasing even one letter of Hashem's name. This includes letters suffixed to Hashem's name, just like the verse commands destroying everything connected to idolatry.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (YD 274):</span> In a Sefer Torah, it was written 'Elokeichem' in place of Elokeihem. The scribe said that in his city there is a tradition to make a Hei from a Chaf (through adding a leg). We will not rely on his tradition! In Shevu'os, we forbid to erase letters suffixed to Hashem's name. All the Acharonim say that this is even if it was written mistakenly, since elsewhere it is read this way. Bnei Yonah says that whatever was written mistakenly is not Mekadesh. He would permit erasing the Chaf Mem. One may rely on him. The Gemara connotes that letters suffixed to Hashem's name must become Kodesh. If not, Hashem's name is not Kodesh, and one may erase it! Hashem's name is automatically Mekadesh what follows it. If we rely on Bnei Yonah, we may erase the Chaf, but the Mem is not Kodesh, for it is the suffix of something written mistakenly.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chasam Sofer (YD 260):</span> Bnei Yonah says that a suffix becomes Kodesh if one intended to write it, and wrote it improperly. One may not erase it, for Hashem's name was Mekadesh it. If it was written by mistake, even though he intended to be Mekadesh it, this is like being Mekadesh a Pasul animal for the Mizbe'ach. The name was not Mekadesh it. It may be erased. Some Teshuvos of Acharonim are unlike this. I say that this is like a Kli Shares or the Mizbe'ach, which is Mekadesh what it touches, but only what is proper for them. Therefore, if the wrong suffix was written, it is not Kodesh. However, the the inner Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh even what is not proper for it (Rambam Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashim 3:18)! Perhaps Hashem's name is like the the inner Mizbe'ach. However, since we learn erasing Hashem's name from the Isur to remove a stone from the Mizbe'ach, which discusses the the outer Mizbe'ach, which was attached to the ground (but the the inner Mizbe'ach was not), we learn from the the outer Mizbe'ach. The Magen Avraham (OC 152:6) says that the Isur applies in a Beis ha'Keneses only to what is attached. Indeed, one does not transgress for removing its benches, but one who destroys the benches transgresses, even if they are not attached. We learn from Makos 22a (it obligates for this Lav for cooking with Hekdesh wood). If so, the Isur of detaching applies also to the the inner Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Maharsham (2:134):</span> A scribe erred and omitted the Kuf in Elokeichem, so it was written Elokim. A Rav ruled that he erased the Mem, and writes Chaf Mem. Beforehand, the scribe said 'I write 'Hash-m Elokeichem' for Kedushas ha'Shem. 'He was tired from fasting, and dozed for a minute, and saw Elokim written. Perhaps he wrote the Mem before dozing, and he thought that he must write Elokim and wrote with intent for Elokim. Or, perhaps he thought that he already wrote the Chaf, or started writing the Chaf and mistakenly wrote a Mem. If he intended for Elokim, we cannot fix the parchment. Even though he said that he writes l'Shem 'Hash-m Elokeichem', he did an act and wrote l'Shem Elokim. His act uproots his words. However, if he wrote the Mem by mistake, there is room for doubt. Tosfos (Bava Basra 5B DH u'Va) and the SMA (CM 78:15) say that it is not normal to forget something on the same day. All the more so, we are not concerned lest in one moment he forgot what he said that he must write. Presumably, he acted with his initial intent. Letters suffixed to Hashem's name have a smaller Kedushah than the name itself.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Maharsham:</span> The Maharil said that Hashem's name is not Mekadesh what was written mistakenly, just like the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh only what is proper for it. Even though he discussed vowels, he compares it to the Mizbe'ach. I saw in a Teshuvah that all agree that a scribe who writes for others does not Mekadesh. The Terumas ha'Deshen (296) rejected this. Since Hashem's name is Kodesh without intent, it is automatic. It does not depend on intent. I say that if it is Kodesh without intent, this is because Stam is Lishmah (Radvaz 1:77). If it is clear that he intended otherwise, all agree that it is not Kodesh. If Sotah water will not test a woman, her Minchah was not Kodesh from the beginning, and it is Chulin (Sotah 6b). Rashi explains that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only what is proper for it Only regarding Asham Taluy, one is Mekadesh (unconditionally) based on Safek, for he is worried about his sin. All the more so it is not Kodesh if beforehand he said that intends for a word that is wrong. Even though if Lan, Yotzei or Tamei came on the Mizbe'ach, we do not bring it down, this is because they are Kosher elsewhere. Here also, Hashem's name is Kosher elsewhere, so it becomes Kodesh! However, we concluded that the Tana relies on Zos Toras ha'Olah. This does not apply here.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (10, citing Ri Chagiz):</span> If one put a vowel other than Tzeirei under the Aleph in Aleph-Lamed ('Kel'), he disqualified it. It is no longer Kodesh. Is this like erasing Hashem's name? What is the law regarding Shabbos? Since he did not do an action to the letters themselves, this is nothing. We must say that he discusses a name that became Kodesh, or not for the sake of fixing it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pischei Teshuvah (13, citing Pnei Aryeh 45):</span> If a scribe mistakenly wrote 'Elokecha', the final Chaf does not get Kedushah. One may erase it whether he intended to write Mem, or even if he thought that he must write Elokecha here. One who wants to be stringent and say that the entire parchment must be buried must bring a proof. If he erred at the top of the parchment, the mistake is not evident. One could think that he wanted to write a Parshah that begins with Elokecha, even though he know that he intended for Elokim. This is Devarim sheb'Lev (intent that was not revealed), so it is Kodesh. He holds that letters suffixed to Hashem's name are Kodesh mid'Rabanan, like the Taz, Masas Binyamin and Maharam Lublin, unlike the Levush.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See Also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REASONING OF REBBI ZEIRA</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: Ula states that limbs of a Korban of Kodshim Kalim that are placed mistakenly on the Mizbe'ach before the Zerikas ha'Dam are not removed from the Mizbe'ach, since they become 'Lachmo Shel Mizbe'ach' -- 'the bread of the Mizbe'ach.'
</p><p>
Rebbi Zeira supports Ula's statement by quoting a Tosefta which teaches that the limbs of a Korban, the blood of which was spilled or taken out of the Azarah, are not remove from the Mizbe'ach if placed there. Rebbi Zeira asserts that it follows logically that the same law applies to limbs placed on the Mizbe'ach before Zerikah: If, for a Korban which will never have a Zerikah, the Halachah is that the limbs erringly placed on the Mizbe'ach should remain there, then certainly for a Korban which <i>will</i> have a Zerikah, the Halachah should be that the limbs should be left on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Gemara refutes the proof of Rebbi Zeira by saying that the Tosefta he quotes refers specifically to Kodshei Kodashim. Since the limbs of animals which are Kodshei Kodashim are subject to Me'ilah before the Zerikah, they are fit enough to be left on the Mizbe'ach once they were mistakenly placed there (see Insights to 84a). This does not apply to limbs of Kodshim Kalim, which are not subject to Me'ilah before the Zerikah.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that the Tosefta also refers to Kodshim Kalim, since it is discussing the Korban Pesach. The Gemara answers that the Tosefta mentions the Korban Pesach only because it has the same law as a Korban Chatas if it is slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah; its limbs may remain on the Mizbe'ach. The Halachah that the limbs may remain on the Mizbe'ach when the blood cannot be used for Zerikah applies only to a Korban Chatas.
</p><p>
The <b>YAD BINYAMIN</b> asks that although the Gemara redefines Rebbi Zeira's assumption about the case of the Tosefta, it does not completely refute his logic. If the limbs of a Korban Pesach slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah (which is Pasul) may remain on the Mizbe'ach despite the lack of a valid Zerikah, then certainly the limbs of a Korban which will have a valid Zerikah should be able to remain on the Mizbe'ach! Why is this line of reasoning not accepted by the Gemara?
</p><p>
ANSWER: The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (#13) apparently addresses this question. He writes that when the Zerikah done for the Korban Pesach is not valid, it nevertheless suffices to make the limbs fit enough to be left on the Mizbe'ach once they were mistakenly placed there. The reason for this is that since most types of Korbanos do not become Pasul when they are slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah, and their Zerikah permits the limbs to be placed on the Mizbe'ach even l'Chatchilah, the invalid Zerikah of a Korban Pesach that was slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah enables the limbs to remain on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS MEIR</b> questions the explanation of the Shitah Mekubetzes. Why should an invalid Zerikah have any effect on the status of the Korban's limbs on the Mizbe'ach? Since the Zerikah is invalid, it should be considered as thought it was never done! Despite this question, the Yad Binyamin points out that <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (7a, DH Ein Mekadshim) seems to follow the approach of the Shitah Mekubetzes. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> GELATIN FROM BONES <span class='indexentry'>[gelatin: bones]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> 'V'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah' includes bones, sinews, horns and hooves;</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	'V'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam' excludes if they separated.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> If only meat and blood are offered, perhaps we must remove the sinews and bones!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> 'V'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 114a (Beraisa):</span> One who cooks bones, sinews, horns or hooves in milk is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 22a:</span> R. Avahu holds that when the Torah permitted (benefit from a Neveilah), this permits benefit from (every edible part, including the Chelev and) the Gid ha'Nasheh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This is like the opinion that the Gid has taste. According to the opinion that it has no taste, how can we answer?</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 9:7):</span> One who cooks skin, Gidim, bones, roots of horns, or soft hooves with milk is exempt. Likewise, one who eats them is exempt.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Berachos 6:35):</span> Musk is a sweat of a certain Chayah. Something like blood is syored in a hump, and it becomes mnusk. The Ramah forbids eating, due to concern for blood. R. Yonah permits, for it is a mere Pirshah (secretion). Even though it was initially blood, we follow its present status. If Isur fell into honey, it is considered like honey. Also here, it is permitted even though it improves the taste of the food. R. Yonah's proof from honey requires a proof.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Pesachim 22a):</span> According to the opinion that the Gid has no taste, it is not like meat. It is like bones, which are like mere wood.</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 87:7):</span> One who cooks skin, Gidim, bones, roots of horns, or soft hooves with milk is exempt. Likewise, one who eats them is exempt.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Kosav b'Shibolei):</span> Shibolei ha'Leket (2:34) says that if the skin of the stomach is salted and hardened and filled with milk it is permitted. Since it hardened, it is like mere wood without any moisture of meat.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (22):</span> He is exempt, but it is forbidden.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (Sifsei Da'as):</span> The Shulchan Aruch is from the Gemara and Rambam. They connotes that it is forbidden at least mid'Rabanan. Minchas Yakov (16) is stringent if a hollow bone was found in a dairy food, and we are unsure if there was initially marrow inside. Beis Lechem Yehudah (99) permitted. Minchas Yakov says that if the bones are soft, even they are forbidden; see Siman 99 (Shach 1). I do not understand. Here the Shulchan Aruch connotes that even hard bones are forbidden mid'Rabanan regarding meat and milk, unless we will say that the word 'soft' also applies to bones. This is wrong.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	(Note:</span> in Hebrew the adjective 'Rachim' (soft) follows hooves, so it is feasible that it applies also to previous matters mentioned, but this is unlike the simple reading. This is like saying in English, 'soft hooves, roots of horns, bones...' 'Soft' could refer to all of these - PF.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (10):</span> If skin of the stomach was salted and dried and became like wood, and it was filled with milk, it is permitted. Since it dried, it is like mere wood without any moisture of meat.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shach (33):</span> The same applies to other innards. It seems that l'Chatchilah one should not do so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Sifsei Da'as:</span> The same applies to other innards, but meat as dry as wood forbids. Likewise, we forbid skin of the stomach through cooking, for it softens. We should be stringent also if it was soaked for 24 hours. We permit only if it was salted or was over the fire long enough (to totally dry out).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (99:2):</span> Bones of Isur join with Heter (to be Mevatel Isur) when they fell in raw. If the bones were cooked and fell in a pot of Heter, the bones join with the Isur, since they absorbed Isur when cooked only with the Isur.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Achiezer (3:33:5):</span> A new powder is made from dry bones. They soak them in lime, then put the bones in water with Chemar (clay?) and put the bones in sulphur, and cook and clean and dry. The bones dry in 48 hours, and they grind them like powdered sugar. They mix the powder with foods and use it to curdle. We can permit based on the Rema, who discusses skin of the stomach that was salted and became dry like wood. The Shach says that the same applies to other innards. Many Acharonim permit also meat of Isur, blood and worms that became as hard as wood, and all the more so bones, which have no Isur of Neveilah or Treifah, like the Rambam says. It seems that there is no concern for dry bones, for the Isur itself joins with Heter to be Mevatel the Isur. The Shach is stringent about moist bones, but the Poskim says that if the meat was removed and they dried, they are like Kelim of bone, metal and wood. The Rambam says that it is forbidden but one is exempt; he discusses bones that are soft or have marrow. Surely dry bones are permitted. Rashi (Chulin 117b DH veha'Atzamos) says that bones join to a Shi'ur of Neveilah only if they have marrow. Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 69a DH ha'Hu) says that bees' legs (that fall into honey) are permitted, like bones. However, if the bones were cooked and absorbed Isur, Hag'alah (purging the absorptions through boiling water) is needed, like for bone Kelim. (Pesachim 83 asked why bones of Korban Pesach without marrow must be burned. Why didn't we answer that they absorbed from the Pesach during roasting? Perhaps we asked why Hag'alah does not suffice. This requires a little investigation.) If it is not a Ben Yomo, the absorptions are detrimental, so it is permitted. However, l'Chatchilah we forbid a Kli that is not a Ben Yomo, lest one use a Ben Yomo. What is absorbed is never proper to eat. Why does it matter whether or not the bone dried? In any case taste can come out through cooking! However, if it was spoiled through lime and sulphur that burns and consumes, it cannot come out anymore. The Beis Yosef (OC Sof Siman 447), citing the Rashba, permits anything totally spoiled. Absorptions are no worse than the Isur itself. The Ran (Avodah Zarah 39) says that musk of Neveilah that became honey is permitted because first it was spoiled. The Shach says that one should not dry other intestines like wood. It seems that this is only regarding intestines, but not for bones. Some say that bones are not Mevatel Isur, for they hold that they have moistness. If they are totally dry, all agree that they are unlike intestines. R. Akiva Eiger (207) says that when there are 60 parts of Heter and there cannot be an Isur Torah, and l'Chatchilah we are not concerned. The same applies to this powder. It is only mid'Rabanan that a Ma'amid is not Batel.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yechezkeil Abramski (cited in beginning of Tzitz Eliezer 4):</span> All the chemicals used to make gelitan do not create a new substance. They merely separate the other substances in bones from gelatin, lest they spoil it or weaken it. If so, surely we cannot permit based on R. Yonah. However, I permit for three reasons. 1) A Beraisa expounds that the Isur of Tamei species does not apply to bones, sinews and hoofs of Tamei species. Surely the Torah permits. In any case one is not lashed, for they are not proper to eat. If so, also gelatin taken from them is permitted. Zevachim 85b says that we exclude bones from Haktarah, for it says 'Basar'.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Hagahas Tzitz Eliezer:</span> The Beraisa in Toras Kohanim excludes also sinews. Perhaps 'Basar' is needed to exclude sinews. The Rambam learns from 'Basar' that one is not lashed for eggs and milk, even though the Torah forbids them. Several Acharonim say that the Toras Kohanim excludes only lashes, but there is an Isur Torah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yechezkeil Abramski (ibid.):</span> 2) The Magid Mishneh (4:18) explains that one who eats skin, bones, sinews... of Neveilos and Treifos is exempt because they are not improper to eat, i.e. therefore they are not included in the Isur to eat Neveilah, just like they are not Tamei for this reason. 3) Rashi in Pesachim 22a says that (benefit from) Chelev and Gid ha'Nasheh of Neveilah were permitted along with the Neveilah. It said that this is like the opinion that the Gid has taste, and asked for a source according to the opinion that it has no taste. Rashi said that the latter opinion holds that it is like a bone. I.e. it is obvious that bones are not considered Neveilah also regarding Isur. Gelatin is made from bones that dried for two years in the sun in India. There is no concern for taste of meat in such dry bones. The truth is, most bones (not cartiledge) do not give taste even when they are moist. Even though it is permitted, in practice one must contemplate whether a pitfall will come from permiting, lest people say that Torah laws change based on Chachamim's will. People did not know how gelatin is made. People thought that it is forbidden. It mostly came from Neveilos and Treifos, and some thought that it is made from marrow. Rashi (Yoma 40a) explains that we should not give opportunity for Tzedukim to say that Chachamim do everything they want.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Teshuvas Minchas R. Aharon (R. Aharon Kutler - 17:22):</span> We cannot permit because the gelatin by itself is improper to eat, since it is used to improve food, just like Se'or (sourdough. Even though it is improper to eat by itself, since it is used to ferment, one is liable for it on Pesach.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Achiezer (3:31:4):</span> The Mishneh l'Melech (Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 14:12) was unsure whether one may swallow an Isur wrapped in Siv (fiber). The Acharonim say that there is no Isur. The Kesav Sofer says that there is no Torah Isur, and perhaps it is permitted even mid'Rabanan. If dogs cannot eat the Isur, even the Sha'agas Aryeh would permit even mid'Rabanan, for we cannot say that since he esteems it, it is like a food. Therefore, surely it is permitted for a sick person, even if there is no danger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yabi'a Omer (2 YD 12:10):</span> Some capsules are made from gelatin from Tamei sources. When one can obtain capsules of Heter, one must, even if they are more expensive. Atzei ha'Levanon permits, even though gelatin is from Isur, since it is mixed with Gumemi (rubber?) and glycerin and it is spoiled so that dogs cannot eat it. It ceases to be a food, and it is like a Siv, so it is permitted for a sick person, even without danger.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Melamed Leho'il (2:35):</span> Panim Chadashos does not apply to gelatin from bones. Most bones have marrow (so we cannot say that there is no taste), but one does not taste meat in gelatin. One may be lenient for a Choleh without danger, for it is a Safek. It is better if the (pill with) gelatin is wrapped in something (so that the gelatin will not touch his mouth).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ix.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevakesh Torah (2:12):</span> There are seven reasons to permit. 1) Most Poskim say that the Isur of bones and skin of Neveilos and Treifos is only mid'Rabanan. 2) When it became as hard as wood and a dog cannot eat it, all agree that the Isur vanished. 3) If it changed to something else, this is Panim Chadashos. 4) Even if it softened again, it does not revert to the taste of meat. 5) All permit a taste that became Pagum and it is not intact. 6) Usually, there are 60 parts of Heter for each part of gelatin. Even if there is not, Mishnas R. Aharon says that since we never heard that anyone tasted gelatin in a mixture, there is a Shi'ur for Bitul. 7) All agree that one may rely on the Rashba who permits a Pagum taste that people use.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>x.</span><span class='desl3'>	Note:</span> Many disagree with many of these points, like brought above. Nowadays, they do not dry out bones for two years! Many Poskim forbid gelatin from bones and skin of Neveilos and Treifos letter of the law, and even those who disagree did not condone to be lenient in practice - PF, with thanks to R. Y. Spitz Shlita for helping me to clarify this Halachah.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>xi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevakesh Torah (ibid.):</span> Many Gedolim distanced using bones and skin of Neveilos and Treifos. Even ha'Ozer says in the name of Keneses ha'Gedolah that people do not eat cheese put in skin of the stomach even if it is as dry as wood. However, there perhaps we are concerned lest the skin of the stomach did not dry enough, and there is not 60 times as much as the skin. Also meat and milk is mid'Oraisa, but most say that bones and skin are only mid'Rabanan. I do not know why they do not make gelatin from bones and skin of Kosher animals. Mishnas R. Aharon (16), Igros Moshe and ha'Emek Teshuvah permit this even with milk.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE HORNS OF THE RAM OF 'AKEIDAS YITZCHAK'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah lists many things which, when by themselves, are not fit to be placed on the Mizbe'ach, but when they are still attached to the animal, they should be placed on the Mizbe'ach. Among these things are the horns of an animal. Horns still attached to the animal's head after the Shechitah should be placed on the Mizbe'ach along with the head. If, for some reason, the horns become detached from the head, they are not placed on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (Shemos 19:13) asks that this law seems to contradict an explicit statement of Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer, quoted by <b>RASHI</b> (ibid., DH ha'Yovel). Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer states that the Shofar which Hash-m blew at Har Sinai was made from the horn of the ram offered by Avraham Avinu in place of Yitzchak at the time of Akeidas Yitzchak. According to the Mishnah, Avraham Avinu should have burned the horns of the ram along with its head!
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that it is possible that Hash-m collected the ashes of the horn which Avraham indeed burned and made it back into a horn.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAIM</b> (Vayikra 1:9) suggests that Avraham Avinu indeed placed the horns on the Mizbe'ach, but they fell off the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah later (86a, see Rashi DH v'Kulan) teaches that things such as horns which fall off the Mizbe'ach should not be returned to the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(c) In his second answer, the Or ha'Chaim suggests that the horns simply became detached before the animal was placed on the Mizbe'ach, and therefore Avraham Avinu did not place them on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
(d) In his third answer, the Or ha'Chaim says that Avraham may have known that this Shofar would serve as a great merit for his descendants. He therefore did not fulfill the requirement to place them on the Mizbe'ach. (Before the Torah was given, the Avos were allowed to do things that were not in accordance with the Halachah, such as Yakov Avinu's marriage to two sisters), as long as they served a great purpose. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) BONES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE ANIMAL THAT BECAME SEPARATED FROM THE ANIMAL</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah (85b) teaches that some parts of a Korban (such as the bones and horns) are not placed upon the Mizbe'ach unless they are still attached to the parts of the animal that are supposed to be placed on the Mizbe'ach. This is derived from the verse, 'v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol' -- 'and the Kohen shall burn all of it' (Vayikra 1:9). That these parts are not to be burned on the Mizbe'ach once they have become detached from the rest of the animal is learned from the verse, 'v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam' -- 'and you shall make as your Olos the flesh and the blood' (Devarim 12:27), which excludes the other parts of the animal.
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which also derives these two Halachos from these two verses. However, the Beraisa uses a different wording when it teaches that bones that are detached are not placed on the Mizbe'ach. The Beraisa says, 'If they were brought up [onto the Mizbe'ach], then they must be taken down.' The Mishnah, in contrast, says, 'They shall not be brought up [onto the Mizbe'ach].' Is there any practical difference between the Mishnah and the Beraisa, or are they in agreement?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Man) explains that the Mishnah and Beraisa are saying the same thing. The Mishnah means not only that these parts of the animal may not be placed on the Mizbe'ach, but also that they must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if placed there. When the Gemara asks 'who is the Tana,' Rashi explains that it is asking who is the Tana of the Mishnah. The Gemara answers that it is Rebbi, who explicitly states that these parts of the animal must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if placed there.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> questions Rashi's explanation. If the Mishnah means the same thing as the Beraisa, then it should state explicitly that these parts of the animal must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if placed there.
</p><p>
The <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> answers the question of the Shitah Mekubetzes. The reason why the Mishnah says that these parts should not be placed on the Mizbe'ach, instead of saying that they must be removed if placed there, is that the Mishnah wants to maintain consistency with the first case that it mentions. In the first case, the Mishnah says that when these parts are attached to the animal, they are to be placed on the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah phrases the second case in a similar way, saying that if the parts are detached from the animal, then they may not be placed on the Mizbe'ach. Nevertheless, the Mishnah agrees that if they were placed on the Mizbe'ach, they must be removed.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Man) says in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that the Mishnah and Beraisa disagree. When the Mishnah says that these parts that became separated from the animal may not be placed on the Mizbe'ach, it means that if they <i>were</i> placed on the Mizbe'ach, they may remain there. This is in contrast to the Beraisa, which says that even if these parts have already been placed on the Mizbe'ach, they must be removed.
</p><p>
The <b>SEFAS EMES</b> sides with Rashi's explanation and questions that of Tosfos. The Sefas Emes writes that Rashi found it difficult to explain that there is an argument between three Tana'im -- the Rabanan in the Mishnah, Rebbi, and the Rabanan in the Beraisa who say that even when these parts are separated from the animal, they should be placed on the Mizbe'ach. If there is a doubt about whether Rebbi is expressing a third opinion, why should one assume that there is a three-way argument?
</p><p>
The question of the Sefas Emes is difficult to understand. As the Zevach Todah states, Tosfos does not say that the Beraisa differs from the Mishnah. Tosfos understands that when the Rabanan in the Mishnah say that these parts should be placed on the Mizbe'ach even when they are detached, they are referring to a case in which the parts separated from the animal when they were already on the top of the Mizbe'ach. Since they were placed on the Mizbe'ach when they were attached to the animal, they may be placed on the fire atop the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Perhaps the intention of the Sefas Emes is to say that Rashi does not explain the view of the Rabanan in this manner because if this is what the Rabanan mean, then the Beraisa should express this explicitly. Moreover, Rashi does not want to assume that there is a three-way argument, based on the simple explanation of the Beraisa.
</p><p>
Both the Sefas Emes and the Zevach Todah point out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:16) rules that these parts should be removed from the Mizbe'ach. He apparently understands the Mishnah like Rashi. If the Rambam would agree with Tosfos, he should rule like the Rabanan in the Mishnah who say that these parts need not be removed once they were placed on the Mizbe'ach. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MAY ONE BENEFIT FROM THE GID HA'NASHEH? <span class='indexentry'>[Gid ha'Nasheh: Hana'ah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	85b (Mishnah):</span> We offer bones, sinews, horns and hooves if they are still attached - 'v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	86a (Mishnah):</span> If any of these, or a coal, came off the Mizbe'ach, we do not return it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> Me'ilah applies to bones of Kodshim before Zerikah, but not after Zerikah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Me'ilah 9a (Rav):</span> Me'ilah does not apply to ashes on the heap on top of the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	9b Question:</span> The latter Mishnah says that we do not return bones... or a coal that flew off the Mizbe'ach. Had it flown to a different part of the Mizbe'ach, we would return it. (This shows that the Mitzvah is not finished and Me'ilah still applies!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 21b (Chizkiyah):</span> The passive tense 'v'Lo *Ye'achel* Chametz' teaches that one may not even benefit from Chametz on Pesach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> Had it said Lo Yochal, he would permit benefit. This is unlike R. Avahu, who says that wherever the Torah says 'Lo Yochal', it forbids eating and benefit, unless there is a source to permit benefit, like there is for Neveilah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	22a - Question (R. Yitzchak Nafcha):</span> It says about Gid ha'Nasheh 'Lo Yochlu' (yet one may benefit from it)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> Reuven may send a thigh to a Nochri with the Gid ha'Nasheh inside. (Even if it is a gift, the Nochri will show more appreciation for a nicer thigh. Reuven benefits from the Gid!)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> R. Avahu holds that when the Torah permitted Neveilah (one may give it to a Ger to eat), this permits benefit (even) from the Chelev and Gid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> This is like the opinion that Gidim have taste. According to the opinion that it has no taste (it is not called Neveilah), how can we answer?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</span> One who eats the Gid of a Tamei animal is lashes twice (for eating a Gid, and for meat of a Tamei animal, i.e. for Gidim have taste);</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	R. Shimon says, he is not lashed. (The Torah did not forbid the Gid of a Tamei animal, and Gidim have no taste, so it is not called meat of a Tamei animal).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Indeed, a Beraisa teaches that R. Shimon forbids benefit from the Gid (and R. Yehudah permits).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	23a (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili):</span> 'Ye'aseh *l'Chol* Melachah' permits even Chulin uses of Chelev;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Akiva):</span> The verse is Metaher Chelev even for Hekdesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Suggestion:</span> R. Yosi holds that 'Lo Sochlu Chol Neveilah' forbids Hana'ah (like R. Avahu), so he needs a verse to permit. R. Akiva needs no verse, like Chizkiyah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> No, all agree that Lo Sochlu forbids even Hana'ah. They argue about whether the verse that permits Hana'as Neveilah permits Hana'as Chelev or Gid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> R. Yosi ha'Gelili permits Hana'ah from Chelev due to 'Ye'aseh l'Chol Melachah' (but not from Neveilah.) Will he forbid Hana'ah from the Gid?!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1:</span> Indeed, he forbids!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #2:</span> He permits it from a Kal va'Chomer. Eating Chelev is a Lav with Kares, yet one may benefit from it. Eating the Gid is only a Lav, all the more so one may benefit from it!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span>	R. Shimon forbids Hana'ah. He refutes the Kal va'Chomer, for Chelev is totally permitted in Chayos. R. Yosi limits the Kal va'Chomer to Behemos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Chulin 89b (Mishnah):</span> The Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to Chulin and Kodshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	Objection:</span> This is obvious! Do not say that the Tana holds that Gidim have taste, and teaches that the Isur of (benefit from) Kodshim is also Chal on it. If so, he should, he holds that Gidim have no taste. The Isur of Kodshim does not apply to the Gid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	90a (Beraisa):</span> 'V'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol ha'Mizbechah' includes bones and Gidim, even if they separated. 'Ha'Basar veha'Dam' teaches about what flies off the Mizbe'ach when being burned. We return meat, but not bones and Gidim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebbi:</span> One verse teaches that we burn everything, and one says only blood and meat! Rather, we burn everything that is attached. What separated, even on the Mizbe'ach, is brought down.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span><span class='desl2'>	99b:</span> The Halachah is, Gidim have no taste.</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 8:14):</span> One may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Hagahos Maimoniyos (7):</span> Re'em ruled that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. We rule that it has no taste, and the one who permits Hana'ah holds that it has taste. Also Sefer ha'Mitzvos says so in the name of Re'em.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon, especially since the Stam Mishnah (which permits sending a thigh) is like him. Even though the Gemara says that the one who holds that Gidim have no taste forbids Hana'ah from Gid ha'Nasheh, and we hold that Gidim have no taste, the Ramban answered that the Gemara said so needlessly. The conclusion is that even the opinion that Gidim have taste the Gid ha'Nasheh is Mutar b'Hana'ah. One does not depend on the other. The Rambam holds like this. This is primary.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pleisi (65:2 DH v'Lachen):</span> R. Shimon holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur (an Isur does not take effect on an Isur). If so, the Isur Gid never took effect on Neveilah, so he cannot say that it was permitted with Neveilah. We hold that Isur Chal Al Isur, so we can say that the Gid ha'Nasheh was permitted along with Neveilah, even if it has no taste.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Or Some'ach:</span> The Ramban says that the Rambam rules like a Stam Mishnah that learns Heter Hana'ah from a Kal va'Chomer. (Note - I could not find the Ramban, and the *Gemara* (not a Mishnah) made the Kal va'Chomer.) Even R. Shimon would have learned from the Kal va'Chomer, if not for the question from Chelev (unlike the Pleisi). However, in one answer, the Gemara said that R. Yosi forbids Hana'ah. It seems that they argue about whether we put the Gid ha'Nasheh on the Mizbe'ach when it is attached (still in the thigh). The one who forbids offering it on the Mizbe'ach cannot learn a Kal va'Chomer from Chelev and blood, which go on the Mizbe'ach, therefore Yisraelim may benefit from them. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 6:4) rules that we remove it. Therefore, he cannot learn the Kal va'Chomer. Why does he permit Hana'ah? One Chacham said that Hana'ah must be permitted, for if not, how is one liable for sale of a stolen Seh or ox? He did not sell the entire animal, for one cannot sell the Gid! This is wrong. Even if we say that one can own Isurei Hana'ah, one is exempt for stealing it. Therefore, this (selling a stolen animal with a Gid ha'Nasheh) is like stealing (and selling) an animal missing a forleg. He is liable for selling everything (that he stole). Also, one may benefit from the Gid in non-standard ways. Since they are unusual, it is not considered to have monetary value. This is after death. While it is alive, the Gid has value, for it helps to keeps the animal alive! It is the owner's property, and he may sell it. In Chulin, we ask that surely, the Isur Kodshim should apply. We do not say that he cannot be Makdish the Gid, for it is not his! Kedushah does not spread to what one does not own!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Oneg Yom Tov (75):</span> In Chulin, we say that Gid ha'Nasheh applies even to Kodshim. How could the Gemara suggest that the Tana holds that Gidim have no taste, and the Isur of Kodshim does not apply to the Gid? Gidim and bones of Kodshim are forbidden, and Me'ilah applies to them (Zevachim 86a). Even though Gidim have no taste and they are not considered meat, they are no worse than bones. (Note: the Beraisa says Stam that Me'ilah applies to bones, i.e. even if they have no marrow. Also Me'ilah connotes that Me'ilah applies to Gidim - PF.) Why should there be no Isur Kodshim?! Granted, if the Gid ha'Nasheh is Mutar b'Hana'ah, only the Isur Gid applies, but not the Isur Kodshim. It is like wood, but the Torah obligates for eating it. However, if it is Asur b'Hana'ah, why is there no Isur Kodshim? Granted, there is no Isur Kodshim to eat it, but if he fed it to a cat or used it for a thread, he should be liable for Hana'ah from Kodshim. It is no less than bones of Kodshim! Since the Gemara said that there is only the Isur Gid, this shows that the Isur is only for eating it. Since the Mishnah says that the Isur Gid applies to Kodshim, we must say that Gidim have no taste, and the Isur b'Hana'ah is due to Kodshim; there is no Isur Hana'ah of a Chulin Gid. This defends the Rambam.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Chulin 7:17):</span> The Rambam permits Hana'ah from Gid ha'Nasheh. Chachamei Lunil answered him that it is forbidden. Tana'im argue about this; the Halachah follows R. Yehudah (who permits) against R. Shimon. The Halachah does not follow R. Avahu. We hold that Gidim have no taste, so we must say that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. R. Yonah said that Pesachim proves that it is Asur b'Hana'ah, but he did not write the proof. Presumably, he holds that the Halachah follows R. Avahu. However, the Halachah always follows Chizkiyah against his Talmid R. Yochanan, and all the more so against R. Yochanan's Talmid R. Avahu. In Pesachim, the Rif brought only Chizkiyah. The Gemara suggested that Tana'im argue as R. Avahu and Chizkiyah do, and rejected this; all could hold like R. Avahu. This is no proof that the Halachah follows R. Avahu, for the Gemara could not have said that all hold like Chizkiyah. Also, the Gemara concluded that Chizkiyah and R. Avahu argue about Chulin slaughtered in the Azarah. We hold like Chizkiyah, that the Torah forbids them (Kidushin 56b). In Ashkenaz they sell the Gid ha'Nasheh to Nochrim. In other lands they are careful even not to feed it to a cat. Therefore, I researched, and it seems that it is Mutar b'Hana'ah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Kesef Mishneh):</span> The Rambam cannot hold that the Halachah does not follow R. Avahu, for he brings R. Avahu's words in the next Halachah! Rather, we must say like the Magid Mishneh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (99b DH v'Hilchesa):</span> We rule that Gidim have no taste, so the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. This is clear from Pesachim 22a. We sell to Nochrim what we remove from meat, even though the Gid is mixed in, for they pay only for what has taste. However, one may not send a full thigh, for it is more honorable when it is whole. We said that the Mishnah that permits this is unlike R. Shimon, who says that Gidim have no taste and the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah.</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 64:10):</span> One may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH v'Yesh):</span> The Rashba says some of his Rebbeyim forbid Hana'ah, and some permit; he favors the latter opinion, and says that this is the custom. However, the Zohar connotes that it is forbidden; it is good to be careful.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Gra (27):</span> The Shulchan Aruch permits, like Chizkiyah. Even R. Avahu agrees. We hold that Gidim have no taste, but Heter Hana'ah does not depend on this. The Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHO PERFORMS THE 'TERUMAS HA'DESHEN' ON YOM KIPPUR?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Yoma (20a) which lists three different times at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed. The first time is when the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed on an ordinary day, which is either immediately before or immediately after the 'Keri'as ha'Gever' (approximately the time of Amud ha'Shachar, or dawn; see Yoma 20b, and <b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 2:11). The second time is when the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed on Yom Kippur night, when it should be performed starting from Chatzos (midnight). The third time is when the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed during the festivals. During the festivals, it should be performed from when one quarter of the night has passed.
</p><p>
The Gemara later explains the two changes from the ordinary schedule. The Terumas ha'Deshen is done from Chatzos on Yom Kippur night because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur. It is done after the first quarter of the night during the festival because the large number of Korbanos brought during the festival increases the amount of work necessary to clear the top of the Mizbe'ach from all of the ashes, and thus the work must begin much earlier than usual in order to clear off the Mizbe'ach in time for the next day's Korbanos.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that the reason why the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed earlier on Yom Kippur is to help the Kohen Gadol preserve his strength during the Avodos of the day. The Gemara clearly implies that it is the Kohen Gadol who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen, just as he performs all of the other Avodos of Yom Kippur. However, the Mishnah later in Yoma (22a) discusses the Payis (drawing of lots) performed to choose a Kohen to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. The Mishnah implies that the Terumas ha'Deshen may be performed by <i>any</i> Kohen and not only by the Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
Who performs the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mishum) explains that the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kippur, as the Gemara here implies. Since the Kohen Gadol must perform all of the Avodos of Yom Kippur, he may perform the Terumas ha'Deshen earlier than usual so that he may rest after the Terumas ha'Deshen before he begins the Avodos of the day. (With regard to why the Mishnah in Yoma discusses the Payis done for the Terumas ha'Deshen, see Insights to Yoma 22:1.)
</p><p>
This also seems to be the understanding of <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Yom) and the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> (Yoma 20b).
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (in the name of the <b>RIVA</b>) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1) understand that although all of the Avodos of the <i>day</i> must be performed only by the Kohen Gadol, Avodos of the <i>night</i> may be performed by any Kohen. Therefore, a Payis is necessary to choose a Kohen for the Terumas ha'Deshen, an Avodah performed before daybreak.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara explain that the Terumas ha'Deshen of Yom Kippur is performed early because of the weakness of the 'Kohen Gadol'? The Riva asserts that the text of the Gemara is in error and should read, 'because of the weakness of the Kohen,' instead of, 'because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol.' The Kohen should perform the Terumas ha'Deshen as early as possible because of the difficulty of the fast.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (<b>TOSFOS RID</b> to 29a and others) cite proof for this explanation from the Mishnah and Gemara in Yoma. The Mishnah in Yoma (28a) lists all of the acts of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim that the Kohen Gadol must do before each set of Avodos. It does not list a separate act of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim that must be done before the Terumas ha'Deshen. This implies that the Kohen Gadol does not have to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. Similarly, the Gemara in Yoma (29a) states that 'when the watchman announced the break of dawn, the Kohen Gadol would be taken to perform his Tevilah.' This implies that before dawn of Yom Kippur the Kohen Gadol was not required to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
Additional proof is cited from the words of one of the Piyutim recited on Yom Kippur, which mentions that a lottery would be performed in order to choose a Kohen to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kippur. Obviously, if the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen, there is no need for a lottery.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>, who maintains that the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen, refutes this proof. When the Mishnah in Yoma (28a) and the Gemara there (29a) discuss the acts of Tevilah of the Kohen Gadol, they refer only to those which are done during the day, and not to those which are done at night.
</p><p>
However, the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) rejects this argument and upholds the proof from the Gemara in Yoma. He explains that the Kohen Gadol either must do every Avodah on Yom Kippur only during the day (in which case he does <i>not</i> have to do the Terumas ha'Deshen, which is done at night), or he must also do the Avodos which are done at night (including the Terumas ha'Deshen), in which case the Mishnah in Yoma indeed should list an additional act of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim.
</p><p>
(c) A third opinion is mentioned by Tosfos here in the name of his teacher. (Tosfos in Yoma (21a) quotes the same explanation in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b>.) He explains that the text of the Gemara is correct, and so is the opinion of the Riva, that an ordinary Kohen may perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. When the Gemara here says that the Terumas ha'Deshen of Yom Kippur is performed earlier because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol, it means that the ordinary Kohanim perform the work of the Terumas ha'Deshen earlier in order to ensure that the Kohen Gadol will be able to start his Avodah early in the morning, before he becomes weak.
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos), who also quotes this opinion in the name of the <b>RAMBAM</b>. (See also Insights to Yoma 20:2.) (Y. Montrose, Y. Shaw)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE EXTENT TO WHICH A 'KLI SHARES' IS 'MEKADESH' AN ITEM THAT IS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING OFFERED ON THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara records a discussion between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about whether the Klei Shares are Mekadesh items that are disqualified from being offered on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yochanan quotes the Mishnah (86a) which states that the Klei Shares are Mekadesh whatever is fit to be placed in them, which includes things that are Pasul. Reish Lakish responds that his question is whether these Pasul items that were placed in the Klei Shares may be offered l'Chatchilah. Rebbi Yochanan answers that this is already taught by the Mishnah earlier (84a), which states that one of the things that is not brought down from the Mizbe'ach once it is placed there is a Korban, the blood of which was received and sprinkled by Pesulim (people who are not qualified to perform the Avodah, such as a Zar or a Kohen who is Pasul). The Gemara refutes Rebbi Yochanan's proof by saying that the case of the Mishnah there is not that the blood was both accepted and sprinkled by Pesulim, but rather the Mishnah is referring to two separate cases; either the blood was accepted by Pesulim, or it was sprinkled by Pesulim.
</p><p>
How does Rebbi Yochanan understand the first and second questions of Reish Lakish, and how do Rebbi Yochanan's responses answer those questions?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mahu through DH Iy Nami) explains that Rebbi Yochanan understands that Reish Lakish wants to know whether a Korban that is Pasul, such as a Minchah that is Tamei, must be redeemed in order to remove its Kedushah, because it entered a Kli Shares. This question is based on the Mishnah in Menachos (100b) that says that a Minchah that is Tamei may be redeemed, but not if it became Tamei after it entered a Kli Shares. Rebbi Yochanan answers that the Mishnah says that a Kli Shares always gives Kedushah to that which is normally fit to be offered in a Kli Shares, which includes disqualified Korbanos. Reish Lakish then explains that his question was whether or not the offering may be brought, l'Chatchilah, upon the Mizbe'ach once it (if the offering is a Minchah) or its blood (if the offering is an animal) was placed in a Kli Shares. Rebbi Yochanan answered that the offering may be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, although his proof is refuted by the Gemara, as mentioned above.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Klei Shares) is perplexed by Rashi's explanation. Among other questions, Tosfos asks that according to Rashi, Rebbi Yochanan cites the Mishnah to prove that the limbs are not brought l'Chatchilah only when a person who is Pasul for Avodah performed the Kabalah and Zerikah. This implies that if the Pasul only accepted the blood, then the limbs may be brought l'Chatchilah. There are many other cases in the Mishnah in which a Kohen performs both the Kabalah and Zerikah of a disqualified Korban. In those cases as well, the Halachah is that they are not removed from the Mizbe'ach once they have been placed there. This implies that they should not be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, l'Chatchilah, even though a Kohen accepted and sprinkled the blood from a Kli Shares! How, then, can Rebbi Yochanan deduce that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh when a Pasul only accepts the blood, and ignore the rest of the cases in the Mishnah in which the Kli Shares does not allow one to bring the Korban to the Mizbe'ach, l'Chatchilah, even when a Kohen performs all of the Avodah? (To understand Tosfos' second question on Rashi, see the difference of opinion between the <b>TZON KODASHIM</b> and the <b>SHALOM RAV</b>.)
</p><p>
Tosfos writes that the only way to resolve these difficulties is to say that none of these cases involve a Kli Shares. However, for numerous reasons, Tosfos still is not satisfied with Rashi's explanation. One reason is that if Rebbi Yochanan originally understood that Reish Lakish was asking about redeeming the Korban, and Reish Lakish tells him that he was referring to an entirely different topic, then Reish Lakish should say simply that he is asking about 'offering the Korban' ('l'Karev'). Why does Reish Lakish add that he is asking about '<i>l'Chatchilah</i> l'Karev'? This implies that Rebbi Yochanan already understood that Reish Lakish was talking about offering the items on the Mizbe'ach (and not that he was asking about redeeming the items placed in the Kli Shares), but Rebbi Yochanan simply did not understand that Reish Lakish was asking about a case of l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who gives an entirely different explanation for the Gemara. Rebbi Yochanan thought that Reish Lakish was asking about a person who brought a disqualified Korban onto the Mizbe'ach in a Kli Shares. He understood that the Korban could not have become Kadosh as a result of being in the airspace above the Mizbe'ach, because the bottom of the Kli Shares effectively separated the Korban from that Kedushah. However, he thought that Reish Lakish was inquiring about whether a Kli Shares is unlike other vessels. Since a Kli Shares itself is Kadosh, perhaps it should not be considered a separation between the airspace of the Mizbe'ach and its contents, and therefore its contents should be able to stay on the Mizbe'ach. Rebbi Yochanan answered, based on the Mishnah, that the Kedushah of the Kli Shares itself can make the disqualified Korban become Kadosh. Reish Lakish responded that his doubt was actually based on this Mishnah. When the Mishnah says that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh anything which is appropriate for it, is it saying that because the Kli Shares is above the Mizbe'ach it therefore does not have to go down, or is it saying that even if the Kli Shares is not on the Mizbe'ach, it is Mekadesh its contents and they can now be brought on the Mizbe'ach? Rebbi Yochanan answered Reish Lakish from the Mishnah earlier (84a), which discusses a case of a Pasul 'who accepted the blood and sprinkled the blood' (in the past tense), implying that it was done b'Di'eved. (Rabeinu Tam maintains that the fact that the Gemara here says, 'and Pesulin sprinkled it,' does not mean that the word 'Pesulin' is relevant to the discussion. This is in contrast to the explanation of Rashi, who says that this is the entire point of Rebbi Yochanan.) According to Rabeinu Tam, Rebbi Yochanan answered that the blood should definitely <i>not</i> be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach l'Chatchilah, as implied by the Mishnah.
</p><p>
Tosfos points out that the same problem he has with Rashi's explanation -- that Rebbi Yochanan seems to ignore the other cases in the Mishnah -- applies as well to Rabeinu Tam's explanation. Even according to Rabeinu Tam, the other cases, for some reason, must not be discussing a Kli Shares. However, aside from the objections mentioned above, Rabeinu Tam's explanation has another important advantage. In Menachos (7a), Reish Lakish asks the same question to Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan replies that the Klei Shares are not Mekadesh what is placed into them. According to Rabeinu Tam, this indeed was the answer that Rebbi Yochanan gave to Reish Lakish in the Gemara here as well, unlike Rashi's explanation, according to which we are left with two different answers from Rebbi Yochanan. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> IS THERE KEDUSHAH ABOVE A BEIS HA'KENESES? <span class='indexentry'>[Beis ha'Keneses: Kedushah: above]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	32a:</span> According to the opinion that Bi'ah b'Miktzas (partial entering) is like full Bi'ah, a Tamei may not stand outside the Mikdash and stick his hands for Semichah (to press on the neck of a Korban)!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	55b (Rami bar Rav Yehudah):</span> There was a Lul (window) enabling one to see into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim from the back. This permitted Shechitah in back of the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	87b - Question:</span> Is the airspace above the Mizbe'ach (Mekadesh what enters it,) like the Mizbe'ach (is Mekadesh what touches it)?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	88a - Answer (Rav Simi bar Ashi):</span> The airspace must be like the Mizbe'ach. If not, how could we do Haza'as Dam of a Pasul Chatas ha'Of or Zerikas Dam of a Pasul Zevach (i.e. animal)?! Once the blood leaves the bird or the bucket, it was Yored (descended) from the Mizbe'ach (and then one may not offer it)!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	You cannot say that the blood is put directly on the Mizbe'ach, without passing through the air. That is not Haza'ah (or Zerikah). It is Mitzuy (squeezing, or Shefichah (pouring))! Also, this is not the normal way to do Haza'ah or Zerikah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Ashi):</span> If a Kohen is holding a Korban on the Mizbe'ach, surely it is as if the Korban is on the Mizbe'ach. We ask whether the Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh something hanging on a reed in its airspace.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	The question is unsettled.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 85b (Rav):</span> The roofs and Aliyos (upper stories) did not receive Kedushah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Rav said in the name of R. Chiya that a k'Zayis of Pesach and Hallel (almost) pierced the roof! I.e., they ate Pesach on the roof. (I.e. the roofs were Mekudashos.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> No, they ate on the ground floor and sang Hallel on the roof.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul):</span> The Aliyah above the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim had more Kedushah than the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Yosef):</span> The Heichal is different, for it says 'Tavnis ha'Ulam... v'Aliyosav' and 'ha'Kol bi'Chsav mi'Yad Hash-m Alai Hiskil' (it is all Kadosh).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Mishnah):</span> If a Lishkah (chamber in the walls of the Azarah) is built in Kodesh (the inside is in the Azarah) and its only opening is Chol (a place without Kedushas Azarah), the inside is Chol and the roof is Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Chisda):</span> The case is, (it is below the Azarah;) its roof is even with the Azarah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (against Rav - Beraisa):</span> The roof (of the Heichal) is Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Counter-question (Beraisa):</span> One may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim or slaughter Kodshim Kalim on these roofs (of the Azarah and its Lishkos).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Chama bar Gurya):</span> The roof (of the Heichal) is Kodesh for putting there Klei Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevu'os 17a - Question (Rava):</span> If one (was Tamei and) suspended himself in the air above the Azarah, what is the law?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span>	Does the time for Hishtachava'ah apply only to one who could bow (but one who could not bow is exempt)? Or, does it apply to anyone Tamei in the Mikdash, whether or not he can bow?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span>	This question is not resolved.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	17b (Beraisa):</span> One may not eat Kodshei Kodoshim or slaughter Kodshim on the roofs of the Azarah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	Makos 12a (Mishnah):</span> If a tree is within Yerushalayim and the foliage is outside, or vice-versa, any place on the tree is judged like the ground below (regarding eating or redeeming Ma'aser Sheni).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 11a (Rava bar Machsiya):</span> If the roofs in a city are taller than the Beis ha'Keneses, in the end it will be destroyed - 'Leromem Es Beis Elokeinu u'Leha'amid Es Charvosav';</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span>	This is only if the houses are taller. We are not concerned for buildings and towers (made for beauty).</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:4):</span> Kodshim slaughtered on the roof of the Heichal are Pesulim. One may not slaughter on the roof, only on the floor of the Azarah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Kesef Mishneh:</span> Rav taught that the roofs and Aliyos did not receive Kedushah. We challenged him and answered that the Heichal is different. It seems that the Aliyos were Mekudashos, and the same applies to the roofs. However, perhaps the Aliyos are different because the verse mentions them, but the roofs were not Mekudashos. The Rambam says 'only on the floor of the Azarah' to exclude Aliyos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shegagos 11:4):</span> If someone Tamei suspended himself in the airspace above the Azarah, it is a Safek whether the airspace above the Azarah is like the Azarah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Shevu'os 17a DH Talah):</span> Some texts say 'is the airspace above the Azarah like the Azarah, or not?' This is difficult, for in Zevachim we say that if Bi'ah b'Miktzas is like full Bi'ah, a Tamei may not stick his hand in! Also, if the airspace above the Azarah were unlike the Azarah, limbs and blood carried to the Mizbe'ach would be disqualified due to leaving the Azarah! Rather, Rava asked whether the time for Hishtachava'ah applies only to one who could bow.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Makos 12a DH Ilan):</span> Here we say that the part of a tree within the wall (of Yerushalayim) is considered inside. In Pesachim, we say that the roofs have no Kedushah. If so, one may not eat Ma'aser on the tree! We can answer that it has few branches, and they do not span four (by four Tefachim). They are not important, so it is as if he stands in the airspace opposite the ground. We can even say that it has many branches, and the air of Yerushalayim is like Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Maharsha:</span> The latter answer holds that we say that the roofs were not Kodesh only regarding the air of the Azarah. However, the airspace of Yerushalayim is like Yerushalayim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Mishneh l'Melech):</span> In Pesachim we say that the one who says that the roofs were not Mekudashos says so even about Yerushalayim! This is clear from the question against Rav from eating Pesach on the roof. How can the Maharsha say that Tosfos holds that airspace is unlike the Azarah? In Shevu'os, Tosfos proved that it is like the Azarah! In Zevachim 87, we asked whether the airspace above the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach. We concluded that if a Kohen holds it on the Mizbe'ach, it is as if it is on the Mizbe'ach. We ask about something hanging on a reed in its airspace. I.e. even though the Mizbe'ach is more Kodesh than the Azarah, surely its airspace is like itself. Tosfos proved that airspace is like the Azarah from the Behonos (ear, thumb and toe) of a Metzora standing outside. This is like something hanging on a reed. We must say that in such a case airspace is like the Azarah, but it is not resolved regarding the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mordechai (Shabbos 218):</span> Rabbeinu Meir was unsure if one may use an Aliyah over a Beis ha'Keneses. Even the roofs and Aliyos of the Azarah were not Mekudashos. However, perhaps it is like the Aliyos of the Heichal, which were Mekudashos. We should treat our small Mikdash (Beis ha'Keneses) with some Kedushah of the Heichal. Even though Aliyos and roofs of the Azarah did not get Kedushas Azarah, one may not act disgracefully there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Radvaz (2:691):</span> Aliyos over the Azarah are Kodesh, and nowadays one may not enter them. The Gemara did not resolve the question of one who suspended himself above the Azarah. The Rambam holds that the Kedushah was permanent, so it is an Isur Torah and one must be stringent. Tosfos is sure that the air is Kodesh. Even though we say that one who entered the Heichal through roofs is exempt, it is forbidden (Rambam (Hilchos Bi'as Mikdash 3:19). If Tosfos agrees that the Aliyos are not Kodesh, except for those over the Heichal, why it is forbidden to enter them nowadays? The Aliyos of that time were not Mekudashos, but perhaps those built nowadays are in the airspace of the Azarah or of chambers (with Kedushas Azarah). It is a Safek (and therefore forbidden). Nowadays, people go there and no one protests. This is because the Ra'avad says that nowadays there is no Kares for entering the Mikdash, and perhaps they are not over the Azarah, and even if they are, perhaps the airspace above the Azarah is unlike the Azarah. Our text says that Rava asked this question, and it was not resolved. Since people have such a desire to see the Mikdash, and there are so many Sefekos, they are lenient. However, it is proper to be stringent.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tzlach (Pesachim 86a):</span> The Aliyos of the Heichal are unlike the other Aliyos in the Azarah. Why did the Rambam omit this? He says that all of them are Kodesh! I answer that Aliyos are no worse than tunnels. Tunnels are Kodesh only if they open to the Azarah. Likewise, Aliyos that have entrances from the Azarah are Kodesh. We need not distinguish between those over the Heichal or the rest of the Azarah. Even though we say that tunnels with windows open to the Azarah are unlike the Azarah, we must say that windows are not called open to the Azarah, for they are not made to enter and exit from them.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Beis Shlomo OC 28):</span> There is no source to say that it depends on being used for entry and exit. We find that even a small window is considered an opening to permit Shechitas Kodshim. Tosfos (Shevu'os 17b DH v'Ein) says that a small hole through which one can see the Azarah does not permit eating or Shechitas Kodshim on a roof over the Azarah. However, perhaps this is only if it is less than three (by three) Tefachim, for it is not called an opening. The Rambam disqualifies Shechitah on the roof of the Heichal, but not in Aliyos of the Heichal. He disqualifies Aliyos only of the Azarah. One who reads the Kesef Mishneh carefully will see so. This is why the Mordechai was unsure about Aliyos of a Beis ha'Keneses.</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 151:12):</span> One may not use an Aliyah above a Beis ha'Keneses in a disgraceful way. It is doubtful whether one may make other uses there.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (39):</span> This connotes that one may lie there on occasion.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (40):</span> Sha'arei Teshuvah says that one may be lenient about other uses, except for over the Aron Kodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Shlomo (ibid.):</span> May one transform a Beis ha'Keneses to be an Ezras Nashim? We may not lower Kedushah from a Beis Medrash to a Beis ha'Keneses, according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi and Rav Papi. To build an Ezras Nashim on a dome over a Beis Medrash decreases the Kedushah. The air above the Azarah is like the Azarah, like Tosfos and the Rishonim (Shevu'os 17a) say. They argue with R. Chananel, who says that the Gemara asked whether the air above the Azarah is like the Azarah. They brought awesome proofs that it is surely like the Azarah. Also the Mishneh l'Melech brought proofs. They compare Kedushas Beis ha'Keneses and Beis Medrash only to Kedushas Azarah. If so, the airspace has Kedushas Beis Medrash. One may not demote it to Kedushas Ezras Nashim. Even though the floor was built over a dome, which separates it from being the airspace of the Beis Medrash, it already received Kedushas Beis Medrash, and the Kedushah does not vanish. The Radvaz says that if a roof was built over something with Kedushas Azarah, it retains Kedushas Azarah. We can explain Tosfos' second answer (unlike the Maharsha, which the Mishneh l'Melech challenged severely) to discuss a tree that grew after Yerushalayim became Kodesh. However, it seems that we say that the airspace above the Azarah is like the Azarah when it is as if it rests on the ground, like R. Akiva says (about throwing on Shabbos). Regarding Shabbos the Halachah does not follow R. Akiva, for we require a proper Hanachah, but elsewhere we follow him. The Rashba and Ran (Gitin 79) compare the airspace of a Kli to airspace of a Kli Kodesh.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE AIRSPACE ABOVE THE MIZBE'ACH</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara inquires about whether an item that enters the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is considered as though it has rested on the Mizbe'ach. This question is relevant for an item which, when placed on the Mizbe'ach, should not be removed (84a). What is the Halachah when that item reaches the airspace of the Mizbe'ach (but has not yet come to rest on the Mizbe'ach)? Must it be left on the Mizbe'ach? The Gemara discusses this question at length.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi (88a) says that if one was carrying, at the top of the Mizbe'ach, an item fit to be a Korban, it certainly is considered as though it has been placed on the Mizbe'ach already. Since the person himself is standing on and is supported by the Mizbe'ach, the Korban is considered to be on the Mizbe'ach as well, even if the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is not like the Mizbe'ach. The question remains in a case in which a Kohen extends a Korban over the airspace of the Mizbe'ach with a pole, without standing on the Mizbe'ach himself. In such a case, does the airspace of the Mizbe'ach make the Korban as though it is already on the Mizbe'ach itself? The Gemara does not resolve this question.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:12) rules that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach. He does not mention that this applies only in specific cases. The words of the Rambam clearly imply that he rules in all cases that the airspace is akin to the Mizbe'ach. What is the source for the Rambam's ruling?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> answers that the Rambam rules in other, similar situations that the airspace of a place is considered like the place itself, and therefore he rules that the same applies for the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam earlier (1:20) rules that if an animal was suspended in the airspace of the Azarah and the Kohen performed the Kabalas ha'Dam in the air, it is considered as though the Kabalah was performed in the Azarah, 'because the airspace of the place is like the place.' This is based on the Gemara earlier in Zevachim (26a). The Rambam understands that the Gemara sometimes expresses a doubt about something in one place, while in another place it has no doubt. The Rambam understood from the Gemara there that airspace is generally considered like the place itself. (See the second explanation of the Mahari Kurkus, and the <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> in Hilchos Shegagos 11:4, who cites many places in which the Rambam rules that airspace of the Azarah is like the Azarah.)
</p><p>
The logic of the Mahari Kurkus is also expressed by <b>TOSFOS</b> earlier (25b, DH Zos). The Gemara there says that water in the airspace of a vessel is considered to be in the vessel before it actually enters the confines of the vessel's walls. Tosfos there asks, why does the Gemara here not cite that ruling in order to answer that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach itself? Tosfos leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (#18) has difficulty with Tosfos' question. The Gemara there is discussing an entirely different case from the Gemara here. The Gemara earlier is discussing water that is falling into a vessel. It is understandable that water that will inevitably find itself inside the vessel is considered to be already in the vessel. In contrast, the Gemara here is discussing a Kohen who holds a Korban at the end of a pole over the airspace of the Mizbe'ach. There is no certainty that the Korban will fall or be placed onto the Mizbe'ach. Accordingly, the case of the Gemara earlier provides no answer for the Gemara's question here of whether something in the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is considered resting on the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
Although the Kehilos Yakov has difficulty with the comparison of the airspace of the Mizbe'ach to the airspace of a vessel, he understands that there may be a proof for the question of the Gemara here from a different case -- a case of the airspace of the Azarah, which is considered like the Azarah. The Kehilos Yakov explains that whether a proof could be brought from the airspace of the Azarah to the airspace of the Mizbe'ach would depend on the underlying reason for why the airspace of the Mizbe'ach would be considered like the Mizbe'ach. One possibility is that the airspace is considered Kadosh because it is considered to be resting on top of the Mizbe'ach. Since it is considered resting on top of the Mizbe'ach, that area has Kedushah like the Mizbe'ach. Another possibility is that the airspace itself is considered Kadosh, even though it is not considered to be resting on top of the Mizbe'ach itself.
</p><p>
If the question is whether or not the airspace has the same Kedushah as the Mizbe'ach, and we find that the airspace of the Azarah has the same Kedushah as the Azarah, we could say that the airspace of the Mizbe'ach has the same Kedushah as well. If the reason why the airspace should be considered like the Mizbe'ach is that the airspace is considered resting on the Mizbe'ach, then a proof may be brought from the airspace of the Azarah, which also is considered to be resting on the Azarah itself and thus has the same Kedushah. However, if the reason why the airspace of the Mizbe'ach is like the Mizbe'ach is different from the reason for why the airspace of the Azarah is like the Azarah, then no proof can be brought from the Azarah to the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
The Kehilos Yakov later says that this question is the subject of a dispute with regard to the airspace of the Azarah itself. (See the aforementioned Mishneh l'Melech, who also discusses at length whether the status of the airspace of the Azarah has any bearing on the status of the airspace of the Mizbe'ach.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:12) answers that the Rambam actually has no specific source for his ruling. Rather, the Rambam is also in doubt about the Halachah, just as the Gemara concludes with a doubt. However, since there is a doubt about whether the airspace is considered like the Mizbe'ach, when an item actually enters the airspace of the Mizbe'ach one may not remove it from the Mizbe'ach, because perhaps the Halachah is that the airspace is like the Mizbe'ach. The Rambam is not ruling that the airspace is definitely like the Mizbe'ach. Rather, he is ruling that, in practice, one may not remove an item once it has entered the airspace of the Mizbe'ach due to the doubt about the status of the airspace. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) IS THE KEDUSHAH OF 'KLEI SHARES' EFFECTIVE OUTSIDE THE AZARAH TO DISQUALIFY A KORBAN?</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that all Klei Shares are Mekadesh their contents only within the Azarah. Does this mean that the Klei Shares, while inside of the Azarah, are Mekadesh their contents only for the purpose of making them fit to be brought upon the Mizbe'ach, but outside of the Azarah the Klei Shares are nevertheless Mekadesh their contents with regard to making them Pasul? Perhaps the Klei Shares give their contents no Kedushah at all when they are outside the Azarah.
</p><p>
What Kedushah, if any, do the Klei Shares give to their contents outside of the Azarah?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> quotes a Girsa which includes this question in the text of the Gemara. In our text, the Gemara says that a Kli Shares used for liquids is not Mekadesh non-liquid items to make them fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach, but it <i>is</i> Mekadesh them in order to make them Pasul. This means that if solids are placed in a Kli Shares used for liquids and then taken out of the Azarah, they become Pasul. The Shitah Mekubetzes records a Girsa that says that this statement was made not about a Kli Shares used for solely liquids, but about the Halachah that Klei Shares are Mekadesh their contents only in the Azarah. The Gemara says that outside of the Azarah, the Klei Shares are able to make their contents Pasul. For example, if the item was placed in a Kli Shares and remained there overnight, the Korban becomes Pasul.
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Kesav Yad, cited by the <b>SHA'AR MORDECHAI</b>) and <b>RASHI</b> in Menachos (63a, DH Kesheros). The Gemara there asks whether that Rebbi Shimon maintains that an oven which is a Kli Shares can be Mekadesh a Korban. Rebbi Shimon says that the Lechem ha'Panim are valid even if they are baked in 'Beis Pagi.' Rashi explains that 'Beis Pagi' refers to a place outside the Azarah, which would make the bread baked there Pasul. This is because it was made Kadosh outside of the Azarah, since it was baked in an oven which was a Kli Shares. Rashi clearly maintains that a Kli Shares can make a Korban become Pasul outside the Azarah.
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>ZEVACH TODAH</b> points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:20) writes that a Kli Shares that is half-full (and the Kohen has no intent to fill it with the normal amount used for a Korban) is Mekadesh its contents only to make them Pasul, and not to make them fit to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. (See the <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> for the source for this statement.) The Zevach Todah says that the fact that the Rambam does not make this distinction with regard to anything else indicates that he disagrees with the opinions above and maintains that a Kli Shares makes nothing Kadosh, in any way, if it is outside of the Azarah.
</p><p>
This is also the view of <b>RABEINU GERSHOM</b> in Menachos (63a). Rabeinu Gershom explains that the question of the Gemara in Menachos is not that the Lechem ha'Panim should be Pasul when baked outside of the Azarah. Rather, the question is that Rebbi Shimon says that the Lechem ha'Panim are <i>Kosher</i> outside the Azarah. If a Kli Shares is Mekadesh a Korban only when it is inside the Azarah, then how can the Lechem ha'Panim be considered Kosher when it is still outside the Azarah? This explanation shows that Rabeinu Gershom, like the Rambam, maintains that a Kli Shares is not Mekadesh anything outside of the Azarah at all. This is also the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>RASHBA</b> in Sukah (50a).
</p><p>
The Sha'ar Mordechai understands that the argument is based on how the Rishonim understand the logic behind the rule that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh a Korban only in the Azarah. Apparently, Rabeinu Gershom, the Rambam, and others understand that the rule is simply that the Kedushah given by a Kli Shares takes effect only in the Azarah. The other Rishonim, such as Rashi, understand that the rule is not based on the ability of a Kli Shares to be Mekadesh an item. Rather, the rule is based on the nature of Korbanos: items that need to become Kadosh in order to be offered on the Mizbe'ach acquire their Kedushah only when they are in the Azarah. The Gemara presents this fact in terms of a Kli Shares' inability to give that Kedushah unless it is in the Azarah, because the Korban becomes Kadosh only by entering the Kli Shares. However, the Gemara does not deal with the fact that a Kli Shares that is designated for Korbanos can disqualify items which enter its confines when it is outside the Azarah. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MITZVOS LAV LEIHANOS NITNU <span class='indexentry'>[Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu: idolatry: Sefer Torah]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa):</span> One may not bring Menachos or Nesachim from Meduma (a forbidden mixture), and all the more so not from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem. If it was brought, it is not Kodesh.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav or Rav Asi):</span> It is not Kodesh to be offered, but it is Kodesh to become Pasul.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 108a (Beraisa):</span> One may write Tefilin on skin of a Tahor animal, even if it is a Nevelah or Treifah. One may not write Tefilin on skin of a Tamei animal.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	(R. Yehoshua ha'Garsi:</span> One may not write Tefilin on skin of a Tamei Behemah, for it says 'Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha' - it must be from something permitted to your mouth.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If so, it should be forbidden on skin of a Treifah or Nevelah!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (R. Yehoshua):</span> Nevelah is superior to a slaughtered animal, for it is like someone executed by the king, and a Shechutah is like one killed by the executioner.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Avodah Zarah 46b - Question (Rami bar Chama):</span> If one bowed to attached wheat, may it be used for a Minchah offering? Does Shinuy (a change, making the wheat into flour) permit something Ne'evad?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	47a - Question (Reish Lakish):</span> If a Nochri bowed to a date tree, may one use a Lulav from it for the Mitzvah?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If the tree was initially planted to be worshipped, it is Asur even for people (to benefit from it). Surely one may not use it for the Mitzvah. He asks about a tree planted and later worshipped;</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span>	R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah forbids it even to people. Surely he forbids using it for the Mitzvah. Reish Lakish asks according to Chachamim. Is it repulsive to use it for a Mitzvah?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Dimi):</span> He asks about an Asherah after Bitul. Does Dichuy apply to Mitzvos? (If something became Pasul for a Mitzvah, after the Pesul goes away, may it be used for the Mitzvah?)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rav Papa):</span> If a Nochri bowed to an animal, may we use its wool be used for Techeiles of Bigdei Kehunah, its horns for trumpets, its thigh bones for flutes (for Leviyim to play in the Mikdash), and its intestines for strings for harps?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	The opinion that the primary Mitzvah of Shirah of the Leviyim is to play instruments, surely he forbids. He asks according to the opinion that the primary Shirah is to sing. Since the instruments merely enhance the voices, it is permitted. Or, perhaps in any case it is forbidden?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rabah):</span> If a Nochri bows to a spring, may the water be used for Nesachim?</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 5:9):</span> We do not bring Menachos or Nesachim from Tevel, Chadash before the Omer, Meduma, and all the more so not from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem, for this is Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah, which Hash-m hates. If it was brought, it is not Kodesh to be offered, but it is like Kodshim that became Pasul.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Mishneh l'Melech:</span> The Rambam says 'all the more so from Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem', for these are Asur b'Hana'ah. Surely one may not bring them, for he benefits from this, and it is Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah b'Aveirah. However, Tosfos says that Hana'ah does not apply to Korbanos, for Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Chulin 140a DH Lime'utei):</span> Why is a verse needed to disqualify birds from Ir ha'Nidachas (for Korbanos)? One may not benefit from them, so they are not 'mi'Mashke Yisrael'! Perhaps 'mi'Mashke Yisrael' excludes only what was never permitted, e.g. Orlah and Kil'ai ha'Kerem. We do not disqualify due to Hana'ah, for Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu. It is not clear if an animal from an Ir ha'Nidachas is a Kosher Korban, since it is standing to be burned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (88a DH v'Ein):</span> One is not Yotzei with a mixture of Terumah and Chulin, and all the more so not with Orlah, since it is forbidden even to Kohanim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (88a DH Min):</span> Meduma is a mixture of Orlah or Kil'ai ha'Kerem with Chulin. One is Yotzei with a mixture of Terumah, for it is permitted to Kohanim, so it is 'mi'Mashke Yisrael.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Shabbos 108a DH Eizeh):</span> Why may we write on animals that people killed not through Shechitah? Since they died, they are permitted. 'Something permitted to your mouth' means a species permitted to your mouth.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 47a DH Mi):</span> Reish Lakish holds like Rava (Sukah 31b), who says that one may not take a Lulav of idolatry, but b'Di'eved he was Yotzei. He discusses before Bitul. He was Yotzei b'Di'eved because Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu. Here we discuss after Bitul, and ask if it is permitted l'Chatchilah, or if it is despised.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Gitin 20b DH bi'Chsoves):</span> Even if a Get was tattooed on a slave through a Torah Isur, b'Di'eved it is Kosher, just like we said that a Get on Isurei Hana'ah is Kosher, even though one may not write it, for he benefits from Isurei Hana'ah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Avodah Zarah 12b DH Ela):</span> One is lashed for all Isurim only in the normal way of Hana'ah. Abnormal benefit is forbidden without lashes. For idolatry, perhaps one is lashed, just like one is lashed for abnormal benefit from Kil'ai ha'Kerem, since the Torah does not mention 'eating' regarding it.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM AND ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bechor Shor (of the Tevu'as Shor) Shabbos 108a):</span> May one write Tefilin on skin of an animal that was worshipped? Surely it is forbidden according to the opinion that requires something permitted to your mouth. Tosfos proved that this refers to a *species* permitted to your mouth. Perhaps he would permit! Isur Hana'ah is not a problem, for Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu. However, even Tosfos would forbid, for idolatry is equated to a Mes. Surely one may not write on a Mes, for it is not a permitted species.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pri Megadim (OC, Petichah Koleles, Hilchos Tefilin):</span> I am unsure if one may write Tefilin on hide of Isurei Hana'ah of idolatry. One may not blow a Shofar of idolatry, for it is despised. The same applies here. I ask about b'Di'eved. Perhaps it is a Berachah l'Vatalah, and it requires Teshuvah. 'Something permitted to your mouth' refers to a species permitted to your mouth. Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu, even Mitzvos mid'Rabanan like Sefer Torah, which is an enactment of Nevi'im. The Ba'al ha'Ma'or (Rosh Hashanah 28a) holds that for a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan, Mitzvos Leihanos Nitnu. He permits Tefilin, but not a Sefer Torah, for it says 'write *for yourselves* this Shirah', i.e. it must be yours. I did not find this Drashah. If one bowed to an animal, its wool is Pasul for Tzitzis (OC 11:8). If the skin was tanned, this is a change that does not revert to its initial state. Therefore, if a thief tanned the hide or detached flax, it is Kosher l'Chatchilah. If so, the same applies to using for a Sefer Torah something that changed. Eliyahu Rabah connotes that it is despised for a Mitzvah, just like for a Korban. Regarding Megilah, which is mid'Rabanan, perhaps it is permitted, for mid'Oraisa it is not a need of Hash-m. However, it is Pasul for Neros for a Beis ha'Keneses.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yad Eliyahu (35 DH uv'Nidon):</span> I forbid l'Chatchilah to write a Sefer Torah, Tefilin or Mezuzah on the skin of a Rove'a or Nirva (an animal that slept with a person). This is like OC 153:21 (one may not use something traded for a dog or a harlot's wage for a Beis ha'Keneses). Also, one may not use a Ner of idolatry for a Beis ha'Keneses (154:11), even though it is permitted to a person (Rema). One may not blow a Shofar of idolatry, since it is despised (586:4). If an Asherah became Batel, we do not bring Bikurim from it, or use a Lulav from it. If a Sefer Torah was written on skin of idolatry, one should not read from it and it should be put in Genizah. It is like one who was Makdish a Ba'al Mum to the Mizbe'ach. It is not Kodesh. Perhaps we are stringent only for idolatry that a Nochri was Mevatel. Since it was once forbidden to people even to benefit from it, it is despised. A Rove'a or Nirva was never forbidden to people. It is not so despised to be forbidden for Kedushah. A Sefer Torah is unlike the Mizbe'ach, for which bestiality disqualifies. The Mordechai says that R. Tam permits cooking ink in Yayin Nesech; the Ri forbids according to those who forbid Hana'ah from wine of Nochrim. If it was written, it is permitted (Beis Yosef YD 123, b'Sof). However, there is different, for only the normal use of Isurim is forbidden, therefore, we permit b'Di'eved. Also, the Yayin Nesech changed and it is not recognized, so we cannot say that it is despised. The Rambam says that if one bowed to attached wheat, it may be used for Menachos. We cannot learn from there to forbidden skin used for a Sefer Torah, for it is still skin.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yehudah Ya'aleh (1 YD 280):</span> Bechor Shor and the Pri Megadim both forbid writing a Sefer Torah on skin of idolatry. Bechor Shor forbids because Avodah Zarah is equated to a Mes. Its skin is Pasul for a Sefer Torah, for it is forbidden to your mouth. He disqualified mid'Oraisa, even b'Di'eved. The Pri Megadim holds that it is despised for Hash-m, i.e. mid'Rabanan l'Chatchilah. I am unsure if he fulfilled the Mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah if it was forbidden to write it! The Yerushalmi expounds 'these are the Mitzvos.' (Only) if you fulfilled them properly, they are Mitzvos. We hold like Rava (Temurah 4b-6a), that when the Torah forbade something, if one transgressed, it did not help. Both Bechor Shor and the Pri Megadim do not forbid Isurei Hana'ah b'Di'eved, because Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu. Many Poskim hold that if it saved him money, this is like physical benefit. Regarding this, Mitzvos Leihanos Nitnu! Therefore, the Torah forbids writing it, and he did not do the Mitzvah. To bless on it is a Berachah l'Vatalah. Some forbid only physical Hana'ah, but not saving money, e.g. Rashi and Tosfos in Zevachim. However, the Isur Hana'ah of idolatry applies even to abnormal uses (Tosfos Avodah Zarah 12b), for it says 'nothing will cling to you from the Cherem.' Saving money is no less than abnormal Hana'ah. One may cover the blood (of a slaughtered bird or Chayah) with dirt of an Ir ha'Nidachas or be Yotzei through a Shofar of idolatry, for there he does not save money.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yehudah Ya'aleh (1 YD 351:6):</span> Rashi and Tosfos in Zevachim did not explain 'all the more so' like the Mishneh l'Melech and Rambam, that it is because they are Asur b'Hana'ah. They must hold that even when he saves money, Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu, like Tosfos in Chulin. Tosfos was unsure if one is Yotzei through a forbidden Korban.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Aruch ha'Shulchan (YD 271:2):</span> Maseches Sofrim (1:2) says that one may write on skin of Neveilos and Treifos; we are not concerned lest they are from animals offered to idolatry. This shows that one may not write on a hide of an animal offered to idolatry, i.e. for it is Asur b'Hana'ah. 'Kisvu Lachem' mandates something that you may use, like we expound about Esrog. If so, the same applies to one who wrote on stolen hide, unless he acquired through Shinuy.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevet ha'Levi (8:223):</span> Bechor Shor forbids because it is forbidden to your mouth. Chasan Sofer says that we permit skin of Neveilos and Treifos because those Isurim do not apply to the skin itself, but idolatry forbids the skin itself. The Aruch ha'Shulchan connotes that 'Lachem' disqualifies a Sefer Torah, Tefilin and Mezuzos on skin of idolatry. Really, only a Sefer Torah must be 'Lachem'. However, perhaps Mitzvah ha'Ba b'Aveirah applies to all of them.</p>
<p class='normal'></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AGADAH: ATONEMENT FOR MURDER AND PROMISCUITY</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the specific sins for which each of the Bigdei Kehunah atone. For example, the Gemara says that when the Kohen wears the Kesones, it is Mechaper for the sin of murder, and when the Kohen Gadol wears the Me'il, it is Mechaper for Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the atonement for murder is the bringing of the Eglah Arufah, and the atonement for Lashon ha'Ra is the offering of the Ketores. The Gemara answers that both statements are true. When the identity of the murderer is unknown, the Eglah Arufah provides atonement. When the identity of the murderer is known, but he was not warned properly before the act and therefore he cannot be killed in Beis Din, the wearing of the Kesones provides atonement. Regarding Lashon ha'Ra, the atonement depends on the type of Lashon ha'Ra that was spoken. The offering of the Ketores atones for Lashon ha'Ra spoken in private, since the Ketores, too, is offered in private. The Me'il atones for Lashon ha'Ra spoken in public, since the bells attached at the hem of the Me'il make noise, publicly, wherever the Kohen Gadol walks.
</p><p>
The same Sugya is recorded in the Gemara in Erchin (16a). However, the Gemara in Erchin records many sins for which a person is punished with Tzara'as, and among them is the sin of Lashon ha'Ra. The Gemara there asks that if Tzara'as atones for the sin of Lashon ha'Ra, then the Me'il must not atone for it. The Gemara there answers that it depends on whether the transgressor's Lashon ha'Ra had detrimental consequences or whether it had no consequences. If the person's Lashon ha'Ra had detrimental consequences, then he is punished with Tzara'as. If it had no practical consequences, then the Me'il atones for it. The Gemara there proceeds to record the discussion of the Gemara here concerning the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
</p><p>
The Gemara there seems to ignore an obvious question. Two of the things that the Gemara in Erchin lists as causes of Tzara'as are murder and promiscuity. The statement regarding the atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah includes the Kesones as an atonement for murder, and the wearing of the Michnasayim as atoning for promiscuity. Why does the Gemara not immediately ask, as it does with regard to the atonement for Lashon ha'Ra, that both murder and promiscuity have double atonements? This question is especially relevant for the atonement for murder, since the Gemara itself asks later why murder needs both the atonements of the Eglah Arufah and the Kesones.
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Erchin (DH Ahanu) answers that the Gemara there knows that the atonement provided by the Bigdei Kehunah for murder and promiscuity is an atonement for the Jewish nation as a whole, and not for the individual perpetrator. This is based on verses that describe how the public is endangered by these sins of the individual. With regard to murder, the verse says, '... for the blood will obligate the land' (Bamidbar 35:33, see <b>ONKELUS</b>). Regarding promiscuity, the verse states, '... and the land became Tamei, and I punished it for its sin' (Vayikra 18:25). These verses show that atonement is needed in order to prevent the Jewish nation as a whole from being banished from Eretz Yisrael as a result of these sins. In contrast, there is no source that the public is endangered as a result of the individual's transgression of Lashon ha'Ra.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Mechaprim) also mentions Rashi's answer. Part of this explanation is given by Rashi (DH Bar Ketala) in the Gemara here, when he explains that the murderer himself does not gain atonement through the Kesones. (See <b>PANIM ME'IROS</b> who proves this from the Gemara in Makos 10b.)
</p><p>
Tosfos in Erchin (DH Ha) asks that this approach seems inconsistent with the Gemara in Shevuos (39a) that says that all Jews are responsible for any sin committed by another Jew, as long as they have the ability to protest and try to stop him. Why, then, does the Gemara assume that the public does not need a general atonement for the individual's transgression of Lashon ha'Ra (against which no other Jew protested)? Tosfos continues and says that if the Lashon ha'Ra was spoken in private and no one was able to protest, then in a similar case of murder and promiscuity committed in private, the public also is not held responsible.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes others who explain that the Gemara in Erchin itself addresses this question. The Gemara answers that the need for atonement depends on whether the sinner's transgression was effective or not. This answer refers also to sins of murder and promiscuity. If someone actually killed, then he is punished with Tzara'as. If he did not actually kill, but rather he embarrassed someone, an act tantamount to killing (see Bava Metzia 58b), then the Kesones atones. Similarly, Tzara'as is a punishment for one who is promiscuous. One who commits an act which is merely compared to promiscuity (see Shabbos 55b) receives atonement from the Kohen's wearing of the Michnasayim.
</p><p>
Similarly, the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> quotes the <b>ROSH</b> who answers the same question regarding Gasei ha'Ru'ach. This sin is listed as a cause for Tzara'as, and it is also listed as a sin for which the Mitznefes (of the Kohen Gadol) atones. The Rosh says that the reason why the Gemara does not ask about this double atonement is similar to the reason given by Tosfos. If a person became haughty and sinned as a result of his arrogance (as did Uziyah ha'Melech when he attempted to offer the Ketores), then he is punished with Tzara'as (like Uziyah). A person who merely feels haughty but does not actively sin as a result receives atonement from the Kohen Gadol's wearing of the Mitznefes. This explanation is also given by the <b>RASHASH</b>.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> here gives a different explanation. When the Gemara in Erchin says that the Bigdei Kehunah atone for such serious sins as murder and promiscuity, it means that they atone for these sins only when they were committed unintentionally. If they were committed knowingly and willfully (and are not subject to punishment by Beis Din, such as when there is no proper warning), the sinner is punished with Tzara'as. This is why the Gemara asks only about Lashon ha'Ra, since one cannot transgress the sin of Lashon ha'Ra unintentionally. Since both atonements for Lashon ha'Ra involve Lashon ha'Ra spoken willfully, the Gemara asks why both atonements are necessary. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SOURCE FOR OFFERING THE 'KORBAN TAMID' BEFORE THE 'KORBAN MUSAF'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the source for the law that the Korban Tamid is offered before the Korban Musaf is the verse, 'Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid' -- 'Besides the burnt offering in the morning that is for the continual burnt offering, you shall offer these' (Bamidbar 28:23).
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kol ha'Tadir) asks that the Gemara in Pesachim (58b) derives this Halachah from a different source. The Beraisa there derives this law from the verse which states, 'ha'Olah' -- '<i>the</i> Olah' (Vayikra 6:2), which implies that this Korban (the Olas Tamid) must be the first Korban brought each day, and no other Korban may be brought before this Olah.
</p><p>
Why do the Mishnah here and the Beraisa in Pesachim give different sources for this Halachah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Pesachim (58b, DH ha'Olah) answers that both verses are necessary. The verse mentioned in the Mishnah here ('Milvad Olas ha'Boker') teaches that the <i>Korban Musaf</i> is not offered before the Korban Tamid. The verse mentioned in the Beraisa in Pesachim ('ha'Olah') teaches that <i>Nedarim and Nedavos</i> are not offered before the Korban Tamid. Without the verse of 'ha'Olah,' one might have thought that Nedarim and Nedavos differ from the Korban Musaf and they <i>may</i> be offered before the Korban Tamid, because they are brought frequently. On the other hand, without the verse of 'Milvad Olas ha'Boker,' one might have thought that the Korban Musaf may be offered before the Korban Tamid, because it is a Korban Tzibur, a communal offering. Therefore, both verses are necessary.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> here rejects the answer of Tosfos in Pesachim for a number of reasons. Instead, Tosfos explains that the verse cited by the Mishnah here teaches that the Korban Tamid should be <i>slaughtered</i> first. The verse cited by the Beraisa in Pesachim teaches that the Korban Tamid also be <i>burned</i> first.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Pesachim seeks a source which states explicitly that no Korban may be brought before the Korban Tamid. It therefore prefers the teaching of the Beraisa, which states explicitly that nothing may be offered before the Korban Tamid, over the teaching of the Mishnah here which says merely that the Korban Tamid is brought before the Korban Musaf.
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos quotes <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> who says that the verse of 'ha'Olah' teaches more than the verse of 'Milvad Olas ha'Boker' quoted by the Mishnah. The verse quoted by the Mishnah teaches that the Korban Musaf which is not offered every day (and all similar Korbanos which are not offered every day) does not precede the Korban Tamid. It does not teach, however, that another Korban which <i>is</i> offered every day, namely the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol, does not precede the Korban Tamid. This is derived from the verse of 'ha'Olah' which teaches that the Tamid must be the first Korban brought every day. (See also Tosfos to Bava Kama 111a, DH Talmud Lomar.)
</p><p>
(d) The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> suggests another answer. The verse in the Mishnah teaches that the Korban Tamid is always brought before the Korban Musaf. However, one might have thought that this rule applies only to the Korban Musaf. If other Korbanos are present and ready to be offered before the Korban Tamid is ready to be slaughtered, then perhaps they should be offered first. This would be similar to the rule taught in the next Mishnah that if a person has two Korbanos in front of him to offer, he should offer first the one that is most Kadosh. The Beraisa derives from 'ha'Olah' that the Tamid must be the first Korban of the day, even if it is not ready to be offered and other Korbanos are waiting.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, the Korban Tamid always must be brought first, even when it will cause a delay in bringing other Korbanos (for example, when a sheep is not readily available to be brought as the Korban Tamid). However, the <b>SEFAS EMES</b> says that if a sheep cannot be found at all, then it is possible that the verse of 'ha'Olah' does not apply, and other Korbanos may be offered even though the Korban Tamid has not yet been offered. The logic for this seems to be that the verse can be understood as saying that only when the Tamid will be brought that day, may no other Korban be brought before it, but when the Korban Tamid will not be brought that day, other Korbanos may be brought.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Erchin (11b) supports the suggestion of the Sefas Emes. The Gemara there relates that at the time that the first Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Kohanim were saying Shirah. The Gemara asks, over what Korban were they saying Shirah? They could not have been saying Shirah over the Korban Tamid, because from the seventeenth day of Tamuz of that year no sheep were allowed into the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered as the Korban Tamid. The Gemara concludes that they were saying Shirah over a different animal that was being offered as an Olas Nedavah (and not a sheep, which is required for the Tamid). The Gemara there supports the Sefas Emes, because it demonstrates that the Kohanim brought other Korbanos even though they did not bring the Korban Tamid. (The Gemara in Erchin poses a strong question on the view of the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> HA'CHAYIM</b> (Vayikra 6:2), who maintains that no Korban may be offered before the Korban Tamid, even when the Beis ha'Mikdash is surrounded by enemies and there is no animal to offer as the Korban Tamid.) (See also Insights to Pesachim 58:2.)
</p><p>
(When an animal other than the Tamid was slaughtered before the Tamid was offered, Tosfos here and in Zevachim says that the animal is not disqualified. Tosfos in Menachos (49b, DH Talmud) says that the Korban is Pasul mid'Rabanan.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafdaf'><span class='numt'>1)</span> DO WE DELAY MITZVOS TO DO THEM BETTER LATER? <span class='indexentry'>[Mitzvos:Ma'avirin]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Mishnah):</span> Whatever is more Tadir (frequent) takes precedence (is done first);</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span>	Temidim come before Musafim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	We learn from 'Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid Ta'asu Es Eleh' (i.e. the Tamid is first, because it is more Tadir).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	90b - Question:</span> Which takes precedence, what is more Tadir, or what is more Kodesh?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer #1 (Mishnah):</span> Temidim come before Musafim.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span>	Even though Musafim are more Kodesh, Temidim come first, for they are more Tadir.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection:</span> Musafim are not more Kodesh. Temidim brought on Shabbos also receive the Kedushah of Shabbos!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Menachos 49a (R. Chiya bar Avin) Question:</span> If the Tzibur does not have enough Temidim and Musafim, which has precedence?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Question:</span> What is the case?</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> Both are for today.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Rejection:</span> If so, obviously Temidim have precedence. They are Tadir (more frequent) and have as much Kedushah as the Musafim!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl3'>	Answer #1:</span> The Temidim are for tomorrow, and the Musafim are for today.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span>	Temidim have precedence, for they are Tadir. Or perhaps Musafim have precedence, for they are more Kadosh (e.g. tomorrow is less Kadosh than today).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Chisda - Mishnah):</span> Temidim are not Me'akev Musafim, Musafim are not Me'akev Temidim, and Musafim are not Me'akev each other.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Suggestion:</span> There are enough lambs for both of them. The Mishnah teaches that either may be offered first.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (Beraisa):</span> 'V'Arach Aleha ha'Olah' teaches that the morning Tamid goes (directly) on the wood (no Korban precedes it).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span>	Also, Rava expounded 'ha'Olah' - the (Tamid is) the first Olah. No Korban precedes it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	Conclusion:</span> Rather, there are not enough lambs for both. (The Mishnah teaches that the lambs may be used for either.)</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	If both were for today, the Temidim would have precedence, for they are Tadir and Kadosh! Rather, the Temidim are for tomorrow, and the Musafim are for today. The Mishnah teaches that the lambs may be used for either.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rejection (and defense of both Suggestions - Abaye):</span> Really, they are for today, and there are enough lambs for both of them. The Mishnah permits offering either first. It is only l'Chatchilah that no Korban may precede the morning Tamid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Pesachim 64b (Mishnah):</span> He receives a full bucket and then returns an empty bucket.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Inference:</span> He does not return the empty bucket before receiving the full one. This supports Reish Lakish:</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Reish Lakish):</span> Ein Ma'avirim Al (we do not pass over) Mitzvos. (Returning an empty bucket is only preparation for Kabalah. It is not an actual Mitzvah.)</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (49a DH Tadir):</span> Musaf is only on a day with Kedushah, so both the Tamid and the Musaf (for that day) are Mekudash; the Tamid is also Tadir. Alternatively, Mekudash means that it is offered first; both of these attributes are only in the Tamid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (49a DH Tadir):</span> Zevachim 91a supports the first Perush in Rashi. According to the latter Perush, why didn't we ask whether today's Musaf has precedence over the afternoon Tamid? This is because another source teaches that whenever we offered a morning Tamid, we must offer also the afternoon Tamid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (Yoma 34a DH ha'Olah):</span> 'Milvad' teaches that the Tamid comes first. It does not discuss when there are not enough lambs for both Korbanos, for Zevachim 89a discusses only which is offered first. 'Ha'Olah' teaches about which is burned first on the Mizbe'ach.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Tosfos (34b DH Rebbi):</span> If the Tzibur did not have enough Nesachim for the morning and afternoon Temidim, according to the opinion that the afternoon completes the morning Tamid, the morning is primary, so we offer the Nesachim in the morning. According to the opinion that the morning completes the Tamid of the previous afternoon, the afternoon is primary, so we offer the Nesachim in the afternoon.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(c)</span>	POSKIM AND ACHARONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Radvaz (4:13 (1087)):</span> A prisoner was told that he may leave one day during the year to pray with a Minyan. A Chacham first said that he should choose Yom Kipur, and then retracted to say Purim, for Kri'as ha'Megilah publicizes the miracle. This is wrong. We do not pass over Mitzvos. He should do the first possible Mitzvah (pray today with a Minyan), without concern whether it is bigger or smaller than other Mitzvos. You do not know the reward for Mitzvos!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Chacham Tzvi 106):</span> The Gemara asked whether Tadir or Mekudash comes first. According to the Radvaz, even if Tadir is first, Ein Ma'avirim Al ha'Mitzvos! Rather, we must say that Ein Ma'avirim applies only when both Mitzvos are equal. The Gemara brought different proofs in Zevachim and in Menachos. In Zevachim we discuss when both are in front of us, so Ein Ma'avirim does not apply. In Menachos Ein Ma'avirim applies, and therefore Mekudash is no better than Tadir.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Defense #1 (Be'er Heitev 90:9/11):</span> Leket ha'Kemach (p.11) says that a Tzibur never dies, so it was a question which comes first. An individual could die, so he does not postpone a Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Defense #2 (Ketzos ha'Choshen Sof 104:2):</span> According to one explanation of Rashi and Tosfos (in Menachos), Mekudash is the one that comes first! The Gemara asked if the attribute of coming first overrides a greater Mitzvah (in that case, Tadir) that comes later. It concluded that they are the same. Likewise, they are the same in the Radvaz' case, so Ein Ma'avirim applies.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Birkei Yosef (90:3):</span> The Bartenura (Zevachim 10:6) said that it seems that Tadir has precedence. Acharonim protested, for the Gemara never resolved this! Some say that we follow the majority of attempted proofs in Zevachim, which assumed that Tadir has precedence. The Sugya in Menachos refutes this. It said that if both are for today, Temidim have precedence, for they are Tadir and Mekudash. I.e. Kedushah of the day also applies to the Temidim. This rejects all the proofs in Zevachim! Rather, in Menachos (R. Chiya bar Avin asked about when we do not have enough lambs for Temidim or Musafim;) we asked 'what is the case?' The one who asked (we will call him Ploni) held that Tadir is first, and Ein Ma'avirim applies only when both Mitzvos are equal. Ploni assumed that R. Chiya (bar Avin) agrees, since he did not simply ask whether Tadir or Mekudash has precedence. Also, R. Chiya did not ask about Tadir for tomorrow and less Tadir for today. Ploni was bothered 'what is the case?', for he held like the rejection in Zevachim that Kedushah of the day also applies to the Tamid. He could not say that R. Chiya asked about Temidim for today and Musafim of tomorrow, for surely Tadir has precedence, and also Ein Ma'avirim applies. He was reluctant to say that R. Chiya asked about Musafim for today and Temidim of tomorrow, for Tadir has precedence, and Ein Ma'avirim does not apply (since the latter Mitzvah has precedence). The answer was that even though Tadir by itself has precedence over Mekudash, when Ein Ma'avirim favors Mekudash, perhaps it has precedence. Perhaps this is the Bartenura's source that (when Ein Ma'avirim does not apply) Tadir has precedence.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yad Eliyahu (42):</span> If one prays Shacharis in a small Minyan (for the big Minyan prays too late), it is proper to go to the big Minyan for Musaf. Even though the Radvaz says that we do not delay a Mitzvah, we are not concerned if the Mitzvah will be done that day or the next. (Note: according to this, in the Radvaz' case, if the next day has Kri'as ha'Torah, he should go to the Beis ha'Keneses the next day.) The Beis Yosef (Siman 271) says that if one does not have enough wine for Kidush and Havdalah, he should make Kidush (on Shabbos night) on bread, even though this is b'Di'eved, and save the wine for Havdalah (which cannot be said on bread, even though Kidush is mid'Oraisa and Havdalah is mid'Rabanan). I derive from here that if Shabbos is after Yom Tov Sheni, and (after leaving wine for Havdalah) he does not have enough wine for Kidush for both days, he should leave the wine for Shabbos, which has precedence over Yom Tov Sheni, which is mid'Rabanan. One could ask even about Yom Tov Rishon. Even though it is mid'Oraisa, it is not as severe as Shabbos. It seems that one may do as he wants. A proof is from the Rambam (Hilchos Temidim 8:20), who says that if there are only two sheep, they may offer them today for Musaf or tomorrow for the Tamid. Tosfos (34b) says that if there are not enough Nesachim for the afternoon and morning, we use them for the one that is primary. This is unlike Tamid and Musaf, in which each is primary in its time. Therefore, one may do as he wants. The Yerushalmi says that one should not weigh Mitzvos (and say that one is more important than another). That is a different matter. It discusses different kinds of Mitzvos, and teaches that one should not prefer one type over another. Here we discuss Mitzvos of the same type, but one has precedence over the other.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) WHY DOES THE BLOOD OF A 'KORBAN ASHAM' NOT PRECEDE THE BLOOD OF A 'KORBAN OLAH'</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the levels of precedence with regard to the performance of identical Avodos of different Korbanos that are brought at the same time. One of the questions the Gemara addresses is whether the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah takes precedence over the sprinkling of the blood of an Asham. The Gemara says that perhaps the blood of an Olah is more Kadosh and should be sprinkled first, since it comes from a Korban which is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach. On the other hand, perhaps the blood of an Asham should take precedence, because its Zerikah provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 9:5) has difficulty with this Gemara. The Gemara earlier says that the blood of a Chatas is sprinkled before the blood of an Olah, since the Zerikah of the blood of a Chatas provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. Why does the Gemara consider this a conclusive reason to sprinkle the blood of a Chatas before the blood of an Olah, but it is not a conclusive reason to sprinkle the blood of an Asham before the blood of an Olah?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARI KURKUS</b> answers that the Mishnah says that a Chatas comes before an Olah because a Chatas requires four Zerikos on the corners of the Mizbe'ach, while an Asham requires only two. When the Gemara says that a Chatas precedes an Olah because it provides atonement, this reason includes the fact that the Zerikah of a Chatas involves four Zerikos. The Gemara here is in doubt about whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is accomplish with two Zerikos, is a more Kadosh event that the Zerikah of the blood of an Olah, which is entirely burned.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RADVAZ</b> answers that an Asham does not provide the same level of atonement as a Chatas. A Chatas atones for accidental sins which are punishable with Kares when committed willfully. Thus, the Zerikah of an Asham is not as Kadosh as that of the Chatas, and therefore the Gemara remains with a doubt about whether it is more Kadosh than the Zerikah of an Olah.
</p><p>
(c) Perhaps a third explanation may be suggested as follows. An Olah offering atones for the transgression of a Mitzvas Aseh, even though it was not brought for that purpose. An Asham is brought as an obligatory offering which provides a required atonement for its owner. Since the Olah's blood comes from a Korban which is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach <i>and</i> which achieves a slight degree of atonement for the owner, the Gemara is in doubt about whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is not the highest form of atonement, is better than both of the attributes of an Olah. (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) 'L'MIKRA HIKDIMAH HA'KASUV'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses the Beraisa's statement that even a Chatas ha'Of is offered before an Olas Behemah. The Gemara quotes three statements of Rebbi Eliezer, in which he relates that there are three specific cases in which a Chatas is brought before an Olah, and in each of those cases, a Yoledes brings the Olah before the Chatas. <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Kan) explains that Rebbi Eliezer learns that a Yoledes brings her Olah before her Chatas from the verse, 'Echad l'Olah v'Echad l'Chatas' -- 'one for an Olah and one for a Chatas' (Vayikra 12:8). From the statement of Rebbi Eliezer it is evident that there <i>is</i> a case in which an Olah is brought before a Chatas. Rava refutes this proof, saying that Rebbi Eliezer's statement does not prove that an Olah may be brought before a Chatas. When the verse says that the Yoledes brings one Korban as an Olah and one as a Chatas, that order is only 'l'Mikra Hikdimah ha'Kasuv' -- 'for reading, the verse gave it precedence.' What do Rava's words mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH l'Mikra) explains that the Torah mentions the Korban Olah before the Korban Chatas in the Parshah of Yoledes only because it wants the Korban Olah to be <i>read</i> first. However, with regard to offering the Korbanos, the Chatas must be offered first.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Mikra) says that Rashi's explanation is perplexing. Rava's explanation is not needed to teach that the Torah wants the Korban Olah to be read before the Korban Chatas; the Torah already clearly writes it in that order! Rather, the Torah, which is written with the most extreme precision of words, is apparently saying that the offering of the Olah of a Yoledes precedes the offering of the Chatas. If this would not be the case, then the Torah would mention Chatas first. Moreover, it is not logical to say that Rebbi Eliezer is pointing out (three different times) merely that the verse of Yoledes says Olah before Chatas, unlike other verses, and he is not relating anything of Halachic significance.
</p><p>
<b>RAV SHACH</b> zt'l (<b>AVI EZRI</b>, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 14:5) offers an explanation for the intention of Rashi. He suggests that Rashi understands that Rebbi Eliezer is teaching something relevant in practice with regard to a Yoledes. When a Yoledes designates the Korbanos that she will bring, she is supposed to designate and bring her Chatas before the Olah, as anyone who brings both a Chatas and an Olah must do. The Torah is teaching that the obligation for a Yoledes to bring an Olah is independent of her obligation to bring a Chatas. This has practical relevance in a case in which the woman dies after she was Makdish her Olah, but before she was Makdish her Chatas. If the designation of the Olah is valid only when done after the Chatas has been designated, then the heirs of the woman's estate are not obligated to bring the Korban Olah, since she was not Makdish the Chatas upon which the Olah is contingent. If the Torah would have written the Korban Chatas first, then we would have treated the Olah as dependent upon the Chatas, such that it could be designated only if the Chatas was designated already. When Rashi says that the Torah writes the Chatas first, Rashi means that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Torah establishes the obligation to bring the Olah of a Yoledes independent of the obligation of the Chatas. (In his conclusion, however, Rav Shach admits that there is difficulty with this explanation.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes <b>RABEINU CHAIM</b> who gives a different explanation. Rabeinu Chaim says that Rava is answering that, indeed, the Korban Olah of a Yoledes differs from the Korban Olah of other Chatas-Olah combinations. As the Mishnah teaches, in most cases, when one has two Korbanos -- a Chatas and an Olah -- that he must be Makdish, he should be Makdish the Chatas first. By placing Olah first in the verse regarding a Yoledes, the Torah teaches that the Yoledes should be Makdish the Olah <i>before</i> the Chatas. The Mishnah is discussing most cases, not that of a Yoledes. However, the rule of the Mishnah and Beraisa that a Chatas (even a Chatas ha'Of) always precedes an Olah still applies.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask many questions on Rabeinu Chaim's explanation. Tosfos himself concludes that this explanation is not consistent with the Gemara in Erchin (21a). The <b>CHESHEK SHLOMO</b> asks that in the verses that discuss the Korbanos of the Mo'adim (in Parshas Pinchas), the Korban Olah is always mentioned before the Korban Chatas. According to Rabeinu Chaim's understanding of Rebbi Eliezer's logic, this would indicate that for all of the Korbanos of the Mo'adim, the Olah should be designated before the Chatas. If this is true, however, then how can the Mishnah say as a rule that a Chatas should always be designated before an Olah? This rule has so many exceptions that it cannot be considered a rule! (Perhaps one could answer the question of the Cheshek Shlomo by saying that Rebbi Eliezer says that the Chatas should be designated first only when the Torah writes Olah before Chatas <i>in the same verse</i>, as opposed to when the Torah writes Olah and then, a few verses later, writes Chatas.)
</p><p>
(c) The Cheshek Shlomo gives his own explanation for Rava's answer. He explains that 'l'Mikra' means that if one is unable to bring the Korbanos, and in lieu of bringing the Korbanos he must read the Parshah of each Korban he is obligated to bring (see Menachos 110a), then he should read the Parshah of the Olah before that of the Chatas. He explains that this approach is particularly logical with regard to the Parshiyos of the Korbanos of the Mo'adim. The offering of each Korban is usually described in one word, such as 'v'Hikravtem <i>Olah</i>' (Bamidbar 28:27), which includes both the Zerikah and the burning of the Eimurim. The law is that the Zerikah of a Chatas is performed before the Zerikah of an Olah, while the Haktaras ha'Eimurim of an Olah is performed before the Haktarah of a Chatas. Therefore, the fact that the Olah is mentioned before the Chatas does not indicate that it should be offered first. The Cheshek Shlomo explains that the reason why one should read the Olah first is that the Mitzvah of the Korban Olah is greater.
</p><p>
He quotes the <b>DA'AS KEDOSHIM</b> who explains this further. The Gemara in Pesachim (59b) teaches that part of the atonement provided by a Chatas is attained when the Kohanim partake of its meat. However, the Kohanim's consumption cannot be fulfilled by one's reading of the Parshah; only the part of the Korban that is given 'to Hash-m' is considered, by Hash-m, as having been fulfilled by one's words and thoughts. Consequently, the atonement of the Korban Chatas is slightly lacking when the Parshah of the Chatas is read, as opposed to when it is actually brought. A Korban Olah, in contrast, is burned completely and is thus totally for Hash-m, and, therefore, it is considered just as effective when the Parshah of the Olah is read as when the Korban is actually offered. Hence, the reading of the Olah takes precedence over the reading of the Chatas. This is Rava's understanding of Rebbi Eliezer's teaching. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> MAY WE PASS OVER MITZVOS? <span class='indexentry'>[Mitzvos:Ma'avirin]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Which takes precedence, what is more Tadir, or what is more Kodesh?</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yevamos 39a (Mishnah):</span> The Mitzvah is for the oldest brother to do Yibum. Even if he wants to wait for the oldest brother to return from overseas, we tell him to do Chalitzah or Yibum now.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span>	This is because we do not delay the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	47b (Beraisa):</span> If he still wants to convert (after hearing about some Mitzvos), we circumcise him immediately.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span>	This is because we do not delay a Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yoma 6b (Rav Nachman):</span> Tum'as Mes is permitted b'Tzibur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rav Sheshes):</span> It is Dechuyah (pushed aside) b'Tzibur.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #1:</span> If there are Tamei and Tahor Kohanim in the Beis Av (those who are scheduled to serve today), all agree that only the Tehorim serve. They argue (in a case when there are not Tehorim in the Beis Av) about whether we seek Tehorim from a different Beis Av. (Rav Sheshes says that we do.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Version #2:</span> They argue even when there are Tehorim in the Beis Av. (Rav Nachman permits the Temei'im to serve.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	33a (Reish Lakish):</span> We do not pass over Mitzvos.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Yoma 33a DH Ein):</span> The Mechilta teaches that Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Mitzvah, for then it is delayed and sours.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Terumas ha'Deshen (35):</span> If one sees the moon on a weekday, if soon will be Motza'ei Shabbos and it is not too far into the month, e.g. it is the seventh or eighth, it is good to wait until Motza'ei Shabbos. Even if it will be cloudy, and also two or three or four days afterwards, he still has time to bless until the 15th of the month. Or Zaru'a says that we bless on the moon only on Motza'ei Shabbos when we are sweet smelling and wearing nice clothing. However, if Motza'ei Shabbos will be late in the month, and if it will be cloudy that night and two or three or four days afterwards, the time to bless will pass, one should not wait for Motza'ei Shabbos. Whenever there is a reasonable chance that a Mitzvah will be lost, we do not delay it, even in order to do it ideally. We learn from Yevamos 39a. This is only if there is a reasonable chance lest the Mitzvah be lost. We do not wait for a minor to mature, or for an older brother to return from overseas, lest the minor die or the older brother never return, and the Mitzvah will pass. (Note: if the minor dies, the remaining brother(s) could do Yibum or Chalitzah. Seemingly, the concern is lest she die, and the Mitzvah will be lost!) It does not say that we do not wait for him to return from another part of Eretz Yisrael, for we are not concerned. Hagahos Maimoniyos says that when Maharam would bless during the week, so the time would not pass, i.e. the 16th, he would wear his honorable jacket. This does not mean that the time would surely pass before Motza'ei Shabbos, rather, that there was a Safek that it would pass.</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 426:2):</span> We say Kidush Levanah only on Motza'ei Shabbos when one is wearing nice clothing.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema:</span> If Motza'ei Shabbos will be after the 10th of the month, we do not wait, lest there be three or four cloudy days and he will lose the Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (23):</span> If the time for Kidush Levanah came, one should not delay in order to be Mekadesh amidst many people, for Zerizin Makdimim l'Mitzvos overrides 'b'Rav Am' (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 97:9).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (OC 625):</span> It is a Mitzvah to build the Sukah immediately after Yom Kipur. One should not sour an opportunity to do a Mitzvah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (1):</span> He should build the entire Sukah (immediately).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Birkei Yosef (2):</span> Eliyahu Zuta holds that one should not make the Sukah before Yom Kipur, based on the Yalkut (Emor 653). However, I saw meticulous people make the walls and Sechach before Yom Kipur, and on Motza'ei Yom Kipur they place the Sechach. If not all of it, they put at least some of it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Moreh b'Etzba (of the Birkei Yosef, 285):</span> One should strive to make something of the Sukah on Motza'ei Yom Kipur, to fulfill '... v'Yakov Nasa Sukosah.' A Chacham will prepare beforehand something he can begin immediately on Motza'ei Yom Kipur. This does not contradict what he says here that one makes the walls before Yom Kipur, for only the Sechach is called Sukah. There is no Mitzvah to make the walls. It is only Hechsher Mitzvah. If they are already made, e.g. walls of the house, they are Kosher for Sukah. However, Moreh b'Etzba connotes that he may do anything for the Sukah, even not of the Sechach. Perhaps this is because it is hard to build (so quickly) from the foundation (to what will hold the Sechach).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'arei Teshuvah (1):</span> Eliyahu Rabah makes a mere Asmachta that one should not begin before Yom Kipur. Dwelling in the Sukah alludes to exile. The Sukah itself does not! If so, it would be good to build it earlier, so it can help tip the scales of judgment, like the Levush says about Kidush Levanah!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (2):</span> In the previous Siman, the Rema discussed the night of Motza'ei Yom Kipur, and taught that it is a Mitzvah to make a mere start. The next day, one should fix all of it, if possible. Also, at night is for meticulous people. Even if one is not meticulous, he should start the next day after returning from the Beis ha'Keneses and finish it if possible. This is even if it is Erev Shabbos, but then one may not work on it after midday.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shevus Yakov (1:34):</span> If one has a Kosher Esrog at the time of Hallel, but an hour or two later he will get a better one, he should wait for it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Yad Eliyahu (42):</span> In Siman 37, Shevus Yakov says that if one prepared wax candles to light, and they brought olive oil to him, he should light the candles he prepared, for it is as if he already started the Mitzvah. I disagree. As long as he did not bless and light, it is as if he did not start. If an Ones occurred and he did not light, surely they are not Asur b'Hana'ah! It is difficult to say that he holds like the opinion that they are forbidden through Hazmanah (designation). We hold that designation does not forbid!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Sha'arei Teshuvah (651:8/17):</span> I say that Zerizim Makdimim l'Mitzvos (he should not wait for a better than Esrog). The Magen Avraham (25:2) learns from Yevamos 39 that we do not delay Mitzvos (to do them better later). We say so about Kidush Levanah. In Yevamos, we say that when a prospective convert accepts to convert, we circumcise him immediately. Beis Yakov (142) says that the entire day is called immediately. This is like R. Shimshon and the Bartenura in Taharos (9:4). See CM 190:16 (if a seller was anxious for the money, paying him that day is considered paying immediately). Tzemach Tzedek 104/120 says that one who swears to pay immediately has the entire day. After this is called delaying. The custom regarding Bris Milah is to be zealous and circumcise in the morning. However, if one knows that he will do the ideal Mitzvah, one may wait even a long time, as long as he is sure that he will do the ideal Mitzvah. Also this is called zealous. Yoma 6b proved this. (According to the opinion that Tum'ah is Dechuyah b'Tzibur, we seek Kohanim Tehorim for the Avodah. If there are no Tahor Kohanim who are supposed to serve today, we seek Tehorim who are not supposed to work today.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rema (684:3):</span> If on Rosh Chodesh Teves one mistakenly began to read the Kri'ah for Chanukah, he must interrupt and read the Kri'ah for Rosh Chodesh.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (5):</span> Even though Ein Ma'avirin Al Mitzvos, here the order is Me'akev. This is like one who pulled the head Tefilin out of the bag before the hand Tefilin.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Taz 4):</span> The Avudraham says that since we learned that they are Me'akev, this implies that if one put them (Tefilin) on out of order, he was not Yotzei and he must put them on in order. It seems that he holds that similarly, if one read the Kri'ah for Chanukah before that of Rosh Chodesh, he must go back and read them in the proper order. This is astounding! There is no such Gemara about Tefilin. The Beis Yosef brings two opinions about one who removed the Shel Rosh from the bag before the Shel Yad, but he connotes that all agree that if he put on the Shel Rosh first, he need not remove it! There is no reason to do so. If one needed to do so, this is a bigger Chidush, and the Shulchan Aruch should have taught it. We expounded that 'when they are between your eyes, there should be two' (you should be wearing also the Shel Yad). Since now he wears both, he fulfills this! The same applies to reading the Kri'ah for Chanukah first. Even though he transgressed and did not do the more regular Mitzvah first. This is clear from Zevachim 90b, which asked whether we offer first the more regular or more Kodesh Korban. If one who transgressed 'Tadir Kodem' was not Yotzei even b'Di'eved, surely one must do the more regular first! Another proof is from Zevachim 12a, in which we say that Tefilas Minchah precedes Musaf, for it is more regular, and it compares this to other cases of Tadir. We hold that one who prayed Musaf first was Yotzei (OC 286:4)! This is unlike one who prayed Tashlumim before the current Tefilah. He was not Yotzei, for one must pray the current Tefilah first. There, it was not time for Tashlumim. He is like one who prayed not in the time of Tefilah. One may not rely on this ruling of the Rema. Also, there are two opinions about whether one must bless again on what was already read. Why should one make a Safek Berachah?!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Korban Nesan'el Megilah 4:3 (29b)):</span> The Rema holds that Tadir (Rosh Chodesh occurs more frequently than Chanukah) overrides not passing over Mitzvos. This is wrong. Tosfos (Yoma 33a) asks why a verse needs to teach about putting Shirayim of inner Chata'os on the western Yesod; we already know this because we do not pass over Mitzvos, even though the southern Yesod is Tadir (most Shirayim are poured there).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH v'Im):</span> Many Acharonim argue with the Rema. If they mistakenly opened the Torah prepared for Chanukah, if the Olah already said Hashem's name in Birkas ha'Torah they should read Parashas Chanukah. If not, they should close the Torah and begin with the Torah prepared for Rosh Chodesh. Even the Magen Avraham here merely explains the Rema, but it is clear from what he wrote in Siman 140 that he holds like the Taz.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (26):</span> Eliyahu Rabah says that if he already read three verses in Parshas Chanukah, he finishes, and the next three read the Kri'ah for Rosh Chodesh. If he did not yet read three verses in Parshas Chanukah, he interrupts and reads the Kri'ah for Rosh Chodesh, and the fourth reads for Chanukah. However, the other Acharonim hold like the Taz.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


lvr: 51
dfh: b
sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) YESTERDAY'S 'SHELAMIM' AND TODAY'S 'CHATAS'</b></font>
<br>OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses which Korbanos take precedence over other Korbanos with regard to the consumption of their meat. One case discussed is when the meat of a Korban Shelamim offered the previous day (the meat of a Shelamim is eaten for two days and for the night between them) is available at the same time as the meat of a Chatas that was slaughtered on that day. Which meat should be eaten first? Rebbi Meir says that the previous day's Shelamim should be eaten first, while the Rabanan say that the Chatas takes precedence, because it is Kodshei Kodashim.
</p><p>
The Rabanan's reasoning is clear. What, though, is the reasoning of Rebbi Meir for giving precedence to the meat of the Shelamim?
</p><p>
(a) The correct text of <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shelamim, see <b>CHOK NASAN</b> for the Girsa found in the Kisvei Yad of Rashi) says that the Shelamim should be eaten first because it is degrading to leave over the meat of the Shelamim, which will start to change shape and spoil as it gets older. The meat of the Chatas, which is freshly slaughtered, will remain fresh for longer and, therefore, is not degraded by leaving it over in order to eat other meat first.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shelamim) argues that this novel explanation is not necessary. There is a much more basic way to understand the reasoning of Rebbi Meir. The Shelamim of yesterday may be eaten only until nightfall of today. The Chatas -- which was freshly slaughtered today -- may be eaten for the entire day and the entire night that follows. (Although the Rabanan enacted that it may not be eaten past midnight, it still may be eaten for longer than the Shelamim.) Therefore, it is logical that one should eat the Korban with the earlier expiration time first, which is the Shelamim.
</p><p>
The <b>YA'AVETZ</b>, who has the Girsa of Rashi as it appears in our text, writes that he does not know why Tosfos understands that Rashi means that the meat will become misshaped and spoiled. The Girsa of Rashi in our text reads that the Mishnah is not discussing cases of taking precedence in eating, but rather it is continuing its discussion of which Korbanos should be <i>offered</i> first. The Mishnah is teaching that when two of the same Korbanos are brought to the Beis ha'Mikdash, everyone agrees that the one that arrived first is offered first. The question arises when one brings a Shelamim to the Beis ha'Mikdash on one day, and he was not able to offer it on that day. The next day, a different person brings a Chatas to the Beis ha'Mikdash, and now they are both waiting to have their Korbanos offered. Which Korban is offered first? Rebbi Meir says that the Shelamim is offered first, since it physically arrived in the Beis ha'Mikdash before the Chatas. The Rabanan argue that Kodshei Kodashim always take precedence, even when the Kodshim Kalim arrived earlier. (However, as mentioned above, the Chok Nasan says that the correct text of Rashi is the Girsa that Tosfos had, and thus Tosfos' understanding of Rashi is consistent with his text of Rashi's words.)
</p><p>
The <b>KEREN ORAH</b> points out that the wording of the Mishnah certainly is more compatible with the explanation of Rashi according to Tosfos' Girsa than with his explanation according to the Girsa of our text. The Mishnah states that the rules of precedence that apply with regard to the offering of Korbanos also apply with regard to the eating of the meat of Korbanos. This wording strongly implies that the cases that follow deal with the new subject of eating Korbanos, and not with offering them.
</p><p>
However, the Keren Orah rejoins, the Gemara later (91a) implies that the explanation of the Mishnah indeed is like our text of Rashi. The Gemara discusses the Mishnah's first statement that a Korban which is Tadir (more frequent) is offered before one that is not Tadir. The Gemara attempts to prove this principle from the case presently under discussion, a case involving a Shelamim from yesterday and a Chatas from today. It seems that the Machlokes Tana'im with regard to which one comes first applies only when the Shelamim was brought yesterday. The Gemara says that this implies that if they were both from the same day, the Chatas would be first. According to our text of Rashi, this proof makes sense. The Gemara understands that if the Shelamim were also brought today and slaughtered first, before the Chatas, then the Chatas still would be attended to first while another Kohen stirs the blood of the Shelamim so that it not congeal while waiting its turn to be offered. Rashi (DH Ha) explains that since a Chatas is more Kadosh than a Shelamim, it is logical that it be offered first. If the Shelamim is mistakenly offered first, the Mishnah implies that the Chatas should be given precedence and the Shelamim postponed. If this is true for a Korban which is more Kadosh, then it also should be true when a less frequent Korban (Eino Tadir) is slaughtered before a more frequent Korban (Tadir).
</p><p>
However, according to Tosfos, who says that the Gemara is discussing the precedence of <i>eating</i> the meat of the Korbanos, what does the Gemara mean when it says that the Mishnah implies that if both the Shelamim and Chatas were from the same day, then the Chatas should be first? According to Tosfos, the reason why one should eat the Chatas first is that it has an earlier time of expiration! This case seems to have no bearing on which Korban should be <i>slaughtered</i> first. The same difficulty applies to the explanation of Rashi according to the Girsa of Tosfos; it seems to have no bearing on which Korban should be offered first. (The Keren Orah discusses this at length, and gives a possible refutation to his proof.) (Y. Montrose)</p><p></p><p align='right'>


lvr: 51
dfh: a
sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE OF A MITZVAH D'ORAISA AND A MITZVAH D'RABANAN</b></font>
<br>QUESTION: The earlier Mishnayos discuss two major principles concerning order of precedence. The Mishnah teaches that a Mitzvah (or Korban) that comes more frequently (Tadir) is to be performed before a Mitzvah (or Korban) that comes less frequently (Eino Tadir). The Mishnah also teaches that the Mitzvah with more sanctity should be done before the Mitzvah with less sanctity. The Gemara here inquires about the order of precedence in a case in which the two rules oppose each other, such as when the more Tadir item is the less Mekudash one. An example of such a case is when one needs to bring the blood of the Korban Tamid (which is Tadir) and the blood of a Chatas (which is Mekudash), and both are ready to be brought (<b>RASHI</b> to 90b, DH Tadir u'Mekudash). Which one takes precedence?
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to answer this question from various sources. One source is a Beraisa in Berachos (51b), which explains the reasoning of Beis Hillel who states that the blessing of wine during the Friday night Kidush is said before the blessing for the Kedushah of the day. The Beraisa says that Beis Hillel's reasoning is that since the blessing of wine is more Tadir, it should be recited first. Even though the blessing of Shabbos is Mekudash, the blessing for wine takes precedence because it is more frequent. This implies that Tadir takes precedence over Mekudash. The Gemara rejects the proof from the Beraisa there, because the blessing said for the wine also becomes Mekudash as a result of the Kedushah of Shabbos, and thus it is both Tadir and Mekudash.
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> in Berachos (51b) points out that the Gemara here seems to ignore an important factor. The blessing of Kidush recited for Shabbos is a Mitzvah d'Oraisa, while the blessing for wine is only mid'Rabanan. Why does the Gemara not say that the blessing of Shabbos should be recited first because a Mitzvah d'Oraisa is always performed before a Mitzvah d'Rabanan?
</p><p>
ANSWERS:
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> and the <b>TZELACH</b> answer that the Gemara here is discussing two Mitzvos d'Rabanan. The blessing of Kidush said for Shabbos is not mid'Oraisa, because the person who recites Kidush already fulfilled his Torah obligation of Kidush when he recited the Shemoneh Esreh of Shabbos on Friday night. Thus, his blessing of Kidush over the wine is only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b>, however, asserts that one does not fulfill his Torah obligation of Kidush with the recitation of Shemoneh Esreh. The Gemara in Pesachim (117b) derives through a Gezeirah Shavah that one must mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim during Kidush. Since it is learned through a Gezeirah Shavah, it seems to be a Torah condition in the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Kidush. During the Shemoneh Esreh on Friday night, no mention of Shabbos as 'Zecher li'Yetzi'as Mitzrayim' is made, and thus this condition is not fulfilled. Moreover, the Tzelach himself in Pesachim (100a) writes that the requirement to recite Kidush only in the place where he dines ('Kidush b'Makom Se'udah') is a prerequisite <i>mid'Oraisa</i> for fulfilling the Mitzvah of Kidush. Since one does not eat in the synagogue after the prayers of Friday night, how does one fulfill the Mitzvah of Kidush through the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh? (See <b>BI'UR HALACHAH</b> OC 271:1, DH Miyad, for further discussion of this topic.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#22) explains that the question of the Pnei Yehoshua is no question at all. Rather, this Gemara is proof that there is no such principle that one must perform a Mitzvah d'Oraisa before a Mitzvah d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
He addresses the intrinsic logical difficulty with his own assertion. The Gemara says that something that is more Mekudash takes precedence over something that is less Mekudash. A Mitzvah d'Oraisa certainly is more Mekudash than a Mitzvah d'Rabanan. Why, then, should it not come first?
</p><p>
The Sha'agas Aryeh explains that the Halachah of precedence of Tadir or Mekudash applies only when there are two <i>Mitzvos</i> to perform at the same moment. It does not apply to something which is not a Mitzvah, but merely a voluntary act (a 'Devar ha'Reshus'). One may perform such an act prior to performing a Mitzvah, even if that act is not Tadir and not Mekudash. A Mitzvah d'Rabanan, when compared with a Mitzvah d'Oraisa, is considered a 'Devar ha'Reshus,' a voluntary act, and, therefore, one should be permitted to perform the Mitzvah d'Rabanan before the Mitzvah d'Oraisa. However, this is not always the case. There is a principle that 'Kol d'Sakun Rabanan k'Ein d'Oraisa Takun' -- everything the Rabanan enacted, they enacted it in the manner of a d'Oraisa law. Therefore, even though a Mitzvah d'Rabanan is like a 'Devar ha'Reshus' when compared with a Mitzvah d'Oraisa, the Rabanan enacted that the Torah rule of 'Tadir' applies even when one is faced with a Mitzvah d'Oraisa and a Mitzvah d'Rabanan. Both types of Mitzvos are considered to have equal status, and the Tadir one is done first. This is evident by the fact that the rule of 'Tadir' dictates that the blessing for wine, which is mid'Rabanan, is recited before the blessing for Shabbos, which is mid'Oraisa. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<p class='newsubafbbb'><span class='numt'>1)</span> CONCERN LEST ONE DETACH GRASS OR VEGETATION ON SHABBOS <span class='indexentry'>[Shabbos: Tolesh: grass]</span></p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(a)</span>	GEMARA</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Shmuel):</span> A voluntary Korban of wine is sprinkled on the fire (on the Mizbe'ach).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> The wine will (partially) extinguish the fire (where it lands). This is forbidden ('Esh Tamid Tukad Al ha'Mizbe'ach Lo Sichbeh')!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Extinguishing is permitted for a Mitzvah (e.g. a Nedavah of wine).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Beraisa):</span> Nesachim of wine are poured into the Sefalim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span>	We cannot say that they are thrown onto the fire, for it says 'Lo Sichbeh'!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Shmuel holds like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something one does not intend for).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Eruvin 34b (Mishnah):</span> An Eruv on top of a reed that was initially detached and later inserted into the ground is valid.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>7.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Ravina):</span> This is like Rebbi. He decrees to forbid an attached reed, lest one cut off the top when taking his Eruv.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>8.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rav Nachman (to his Talmidim):</span> Go bend reeds for us to sit on tomorrow (Shabbos).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>9.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (Rami bar Chama):</span> The Mishnah does not permit a reed that was initially attached! (It is like a tree, and it is forbidden on Shabbos.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>10.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer (Rav Nachman):</span> That refers to reeds that became hard like a tree.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>11.</span><span class='desl2'>	100a (Beraisa):</span> If roots of a tree are three Tefachim above the ground, one may not sit on them, for one may not climb a tree, hang on it or lean on it.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>12.</span><span class='desl2'>	100b (Beraisa #1):</span> The same (Isur) applies to a moist or dry (dead) tree.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>13.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</span> A moist tree is forbidden, but a dry tree is permitted.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>14.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution:</span> We permit in summer (people know that it is dead because it has no leaves), but forbid in winter (due to suspicion).</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>15.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> If we permit a dry tree, fruits will fall off, and people will come to detach from living trees!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>16.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The case is, it has no fruits.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>17.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Twigs will break off, and people will come to detach from living trees!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>18.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The case is, it is a barren stump without branches.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>19.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question:</span> Rav visited Apastiya and forbade such a tree!</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>20.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> Rav saw a need to be stringent. (The people there were unlearned.)</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>21.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Rami bar Aba):</span> One may not walk on grass on Shabbos - 'v'Atz (one who tramples) b'Raglayim Chotei.'</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>22.</span><span class='desl2'>	(Beraisa #1):</span> One may walk on grass on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>23.</span><span class='desl2'>	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</span> One may not walk on grass on Shabbos.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>24.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution #1:</span> One may walk on dry grass on Shabbos, but not on wet grass.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>25.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution #2:</span> Both Beraisos discuss wet grass. One discusses winter, and the other discusses summer.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>26.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution #3:</span> Both Beraisos discuss summer (some texts - winter). It is permitted if he wears shoes, but forbidden in bare feet.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>27.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution #4:</span> Both Beraisos discuss one who wears shoes. It is forbidden in shoes with spikes, and permitted in shoes without spikes.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>28.</span><span class='desl2'>	Resolution #5:</span> Both Beraisos discuss shoes with spikes. It is permitted on short grass, and forbidden on long grass.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>29.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shabbos 82a (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna):</span> (On Shabbos) if one has a pebble and grass, he cleans himself (in the privy) with the pebble, but not with the grass.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>30.</span><span class='desl2'>	(The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna):</span> He uses the grass, but not the pebble.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>31.</span><span class='desl2'>	Question (against the latter opinion - Beraisa):</span> Cleaning with something that can burn causes the anal teeth to fall out.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>32.</span><span class='desl2'>	Answer:</span> The latter opinion discusses wet grass, it does not burn.</p>
<p class='firstindenthalachah'><span class='numl1'>(b)</span>	RISHONIM</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>1.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 1:5):</span> If something is permitted on Shabbos, but while doing it, it is possible that a Melachah will or will not be done, if he does not intend for the Melachah, it is permitted. One may walk on grass on Shabbos as long as he does not intend to uproot it. Therefore, if it became uprooted, he need not be concerned.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (21:6):</span> One may not go up a tree, whether it is moist or dry. One may not hang on it or be supported by it. One may not use anything attached. This is a decree lest he detach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> The Gemara answered that a dry tree is permitted in winter. Rav forbade at all times; this was a fence. The Meforshim say that we rely on this to forbid all trees. The Rambam agrees.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>3.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rambam (26:5):</span> If one had a pebble and grass, if it is soft grass he cleans himself with it. If not, he uses the pebble.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Magid Mishneh:</span> He rules like the opinion that we use the grass. Rashi explains that wet grass does not burn. It seems that the Rambam agrees. The Rif and Sefer ha'Itim say oppositely. They permit only dry grass, but moist grass causes the anal teeth to fall out.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (OC 312 DH Tzeror):</span> Our text of the Rif (distinguishes between moist and dry leaves, but does not specify we use) does not connote oppositely.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>4.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Eruvin 10:12):</span> (Initially) we forbid in winter, for then grass is hard and it is prone to break. We permit in summer, when the grass is soft and bends. We conclude like R. Shimon, and permit walking on grass in every case. We should decree about a dry tree, for it is more prone to break off. We cannot prove from here that a dry tree is permitted. It seems that the Rif does not distinguish between trees and grass, and this is why he omitted the law of dry trees.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>5.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rosh (Shabbos 8:2):</span> One cleans himself with moist grass, but not with dry grass, lest it cause the anal teeth to fall out.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl3'>	Hagahos Ashri:</span> The first opinion says not to use grass, for even if it is moist and does not burn, it causes the anal teeth to fall out.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	R. Yehonason (on Rif Eruvin 33b DH Asur):</span> (Initially, we say that) one may not walk on wet grass due to detaching. Dry grass is considered as if it were already detached. We are stringent in summer when grass is close to drying out, and it is prone to break.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>6.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rashi (Shabbos 82a DH v'Eino):</span> The first opinion says not to use grass, for it is moist and it cuts the flesh. My Rebbeyim say that the concern is uprooting it. I do not understand. Surely, no one permits attached grass! It seems that they hold that it is attached, and he uses it and leaves it attached.</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 336:3):</span> One may walk on grass on Shabbos, whether it is wet or dry, since he does not intend to uproot it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Mutar):</span> The Gemara concluded that it is permitted in every case, for we hold like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bach (5):</span> The conclusion permits even wet grass, which is not considered detached, even in summer when it is prone to break, even in bare feet. Even though grass sticks between his toes and is uprooted, it is Davar she'Eino Miskaven. It is not a Pesik Reishei. If there is no textual error in the Rosh (who is more lenient in summer), we must say that everyone explains based on the grass in his locale.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Taz (6):</span> One may walk on it, but he may not use it. The Rambam forbids using even Yerek (other vegetation).</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (25, citing Eliyahu Rabah):</span> The Taz holds that we permit only walking, for the hands are far (from the grass, so we are not concerned lest he detach), but one may not use it. This is wrong. (Rather, one may use it.) The Gemara taught the Heter to walk on it, for this is a bigger Chidush. It is more prone to get uprooted through walking than through using it, especially if he walks barefoot.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (24):</span> The Shulchan Aruch connotes that we permit walking even barefoot on long grass, and the grass clings between his toes, for it is not a Pesik Reishei that it be detached. Therefore, even if it is detached, it is not an Isur, for he did not intend. However, if he finds grass between his toes or on his shoes, he may not remove it with his hand. It is Muktzah, for at the start of Shabbos it was attached.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (25):</span> One must be careful not to run on long grass, for it is a Pesik Reishei that it will be detached. Perhaps one must be careful even about walking quickly on it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Bi'ur Halachah (DH Mutar):</span> Semag says that we do not climb trees on Shabbos; this is a decree lest one detach; also in Eruvin, we say that one may not walk on grass in a place where he is sure to detach. This is astounding. The Gemara concluded that every case mentioned is permitted, since we hold like R. Shimon! Also the Maharshal's explanation of Semag is astounding. He says that all of these (cases that the Gemara initially forbade) are a Pesik Reishei. It is permitted because it is not Meleches Machsheves (the Torah forbids only intended Melachah). This is unlike many Rishonim, who say that it is not a Pesik Reishei. Even if this were all true, Semag is difficult. The Gemara concluded that every case is permitted! Actually, Semag is from Sefer Yere'im. Rami bar Aba forbade walking on grass due to 'v'Atz b'Raglayim Chotei.' Semag and the Yere'im did not want to explain that is only in the Hava Amina. Rather, it is even like the conclusion, that we hold like R. Shimon. He discusses a case that is a Pesik Reishei, e.g. he goes quickly and runs on long grass. 'Atz' refers to rushing. The Yere'im similarly explains (in another Sugya) that Avin Tzipora'ah is not like R. Yehudah, rather, like R. Shimon, in a case that is a Pesik Reishei.</p>
<p class='secondindent'><span class='numl2'>2.</span><span class='desl2'>	Shulchan Aruch (312:6):</span> One may clean himself with moist grass, even if it is attached, as long as he does not move it. This is not a problem of using something attached, for Chachamim forbade only trees, but not Yerek.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>i.</span><span class='desl2'>	Beis Yosef (DH Tzeror):</span> Rashi connotes that even if the grass is attached, it is permitted; he may not move it. This is like it says in Eruvin 34b, that Chachamim forbade only trees, but not Yerek. Also R. Yerucham says so.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>ii.</span><span class='desl3'>	Gra:</span> This is like Rashi's Rebbeyim.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Magen Avraham (6):</span> One may not move it because it is Muktzah.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>iv.</span><span class='desl2'>	Rebuttal (Eliyahu Rabah):</span> The Isur is not due to Muktzah. Rather, we are concerned lest he detach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>v.</span><span class='desl3'>	Eshel Avraham:</span> Even though it is food for animals, since it is attached, it is Muktzah. One may clean himself with his body; he may not move it with his hand. One may move Muktzah with his body, even for the sake of the Muktzah. Eliyahu Rabah is difficult. The Shulchan Aruch need not teaches that one may not detach!</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vi.</span><span class='desl3'>	Machatzis ha'Shekel:</span> Tosfos Shabbos and Eliyahu Rabah hold that Muktzah applies to Peros that were detached or fell on Shabbos. Since he did not detach them before Shabbos, he showed that he did not intend for them. One may use them when attached, unless the Isur of using something attached applies. It does not apply to grass, therefore, the only concern is lest he detach.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>vii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Mishnah Berurah (19):</span> One may not move it from where it is attached, lest he detach it.</p>
<p class='thirdindent'><span class='numl3'>viii.</span><span class='desl2'>	Kaf ha'Chayim (35):</span> Perhaps it is permitted even with a tree; due to Kavod ha'Briyos (it is disgraceful if he cannot clean himself), Chachamim did not decree. They did not decree about attached leaves, for even if he detaches, it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah (it does not *give* benefit to him, or is not done for the same purpose as in the Mishkan). Also, he does not intend, and it is not a Pesik Reishei. Levush and Eliyahu Rabah say so. R. Zalman permits a tree only if he does not have rocks or pebbles.</p>
<p class='seealso'>See also:</p>
<p class='seealsotext'>


